DCRB & MARC Format (Rev.)

[Patrick Russell]

Hi all:

Re Elizabeth's comments (Feb. 12) DCRB & MARC & 856:

I intended 856 appended doc.  to illustrate how 856 might be formulated,
though the specific examples of use by Bancroft do not generally apply to
rare books!  As it stands, this doc. would not be an appropriate appendix
to DCRB, though some greatly changed version might be.  

However, the document was intended also to raise the points Elizabeth makes!

1)
"I suspect that 856s for electronic versions of books or parts of books
will be the most common need for 856s. How should we insert this in DCRB?
Perhaps in the notes area (for 555 and 530 with companion 856s?) or as an a
separate section or appendix?"

I think that electronic versions of printed/published items will be the
relevant concern for DCRB. Manuscripts (medieval or modern) can be handled
in other forums.  I'll try to find an early printed example that is
digitized (maybe someone can provide) and "play around with notes, etc. vs.
appendix."  

2)
"Also the finding aid 856 may be necessary for any collection-level
cataloging of rare books."

 We have talked about "collection-level" cataloging of rare printed
material at Bancroft, with a corresponding finding aid, but not actually
done it.  Berkeley Finding Aid project & I are in the process of putting
together an SGML finding aid for Bancroft's Incunabula Collection, for
which I will create a corresponding collection-level MARC record (of
course, we have item-level records in MARC for all our incunabula, and I
think we should continue to have them for present and future acquisitions
of incunabula).  But there is desire by the Bancroft Director to have
access to units of material we call "collections" such as Incunabula,
Bancroft Poetry Archive, etc.  I think perhaps we need to discuss in a
general way the concept of "collection-level records" for "units" of rare
printed books, rare printed ephemera, rare pamphlets, and the like.  We can
then move to a more specific discussion of place (if any) in DCRB/DCRM or
something else. 

3) I have a concern about electronic versions, that is, the so called
"version" may not in fact be a complete version/representation of the hard
copy.  Also, how does Standards Committee view the issue of versions?
Different records (e.g.,  presently microform and hard copy version get
separate records per LC practice): a record for "hard" copy AND a record
for digitized  "version"?  At some point, for practical reasons, we move
beyond the scope of DCRB/DCRM, but I'm not sure what that point is!

Thanks,

Patrick