DCRB & MARC Format

[Elizabeth Robinson]

Patrick et al.

Some preliminary response to your email below:

1. I was confused about the obsolescence issue of X9X you mentioned, so I checked the USMARC for Bibs. Sheets are there for 09X, 59X, and 69X. They all simply say they are locally defined. Anyhow in regards to the main question you poised about which MARC format to be concerned about, yes, I think USMARC for Bibs is the way to go and not the specific versions from the utilities.

2. As regards the consideration of local systems within the cataloging code, I don't expect us to try to evaluate and accommodate the problems of all the specific systems, but at the same time, the local systems issue is not something that can be completely overlooked. 
	In our transcription topic, we are currently discussing 246 $i vs. 500 and 246 $a. The rules as they stand now allow both (7C4 and App. A, 7C4-5). I don't think we have to make a choice on one or the other; leave that to local library practice. If we want to use examples that display a variety of ways of doing the same thing, that might re-enforce that notion. Just selections, not all the varied ways.

3. Should examples have tagging? I think that would be quite helpful. I would also vote to keep the examples at the rules they illustrate. And continue with _Examples to DCRB_ also.

5. I don't have any experience with the USMARC Holdings either, but I it would be relevant for rare serials.

6. Initial articles in uniform titles - I wonder what's being discussed. These are already being dropped.

6. 740 - For unestablished title main entry added entries. E.g.:

	245 00 Stories of love ...
	500      Includes the anonymous Tale of the heartbroken 		maiden.
	740 02 Tale of the heartbroken maiden.

6. Use of $3 - Had to look this one up; never used it before. I gather it is to focus descriptive information to a part of the thing being cataloged. That could be universal or copy-specific. I did look at examples in the various 5xx chapters. $5 [NUC code], of course, always indicates copy-specific info.

The "right" field for provenance - As I recall, when format integration was first implemented, there was some discussion among catalogers about whether to use 561 for provenance of books like one uses it with manuscripts. Many libraries (mines included) use 590 for provenance. And the difference in the fields, as currently defined in USMARC Bib, is 590 (since local) can be used for the last former owner you have (or whatever provenance info [generally incomplete] you have) whereas 561 is suppose to be tracing ownership from creation to current owner. Most of us don't have that kind of comprehensive data for our books, so we've been sticking with 590.

--Elizabeth A. Robinson
  Principal Rare Book Cataloger
  Huntington Library
  erobinson@huntington.org



----------
From: 	Patrick Russell[SMTP:prussell@library.berkeley.edu]
Sent: 	Monday, January 25, 1999 10:45 AM
To: 	dcrb-l@lib.byu.edu
Subject: 	DCRB & MARC Format

<<File: 856.wpd>>
Hi all:


I want to summarize some DCRB issues related to MARC as I see them.  I do
not believe we are far enough along in discussion to have touched on many
issues/problems, so this is more like a feeler.


<bold>Some general questions:

</bold>

1) Should we consider MARC as published by LC/MARBI?  As
implemented/supplemented by the various utilities (OCLC, RLIN, WLN,
UTLAS) - I have in mind such points as the various X9X fields found in
OCLC and RLIN, but not in, or obsolete in, published LC MARC Formats.  My
preference is to stick to published MARC, not utilities MARC.


2) To what extent should local/LAN/utility implementations be taken into
account?  This seems to me to be beyond the committee's scope of
responsibility.


3) Should examples in revised DCRB be tagged (I have in mind the current
practice in LCSH Manual: show fully tagged examples. Cf. Appendix C,
DCRB)?  Use APPM model, placing tagged examples at end?  Place as at
present in supplemental publication?  I think there a benefit in having
the specific examples in DCRB tagged in style of LCSH manual; but I like
also the complete sample records, with accompanying title pages.  The
context (entire record) is important, not just individual parts.


4) I have no cataloging experience in applying DCRB to serials, maps, or
scores. So, any gaps in what follows vis-a-vis these formats need to be
filled in by others with appropriate experience.


5) I have no experience with MARC Hholdings Format (Bancroft does not
use).  Again, does anyone have such experience? Is it relevant to DCRB
issues? 


6) Implications of new fields/subfields in BK format due to format
integration?


<bold>To go through some fields:

</bold>

008/044: Imprint Places: corrected, fictitious, false ?

008/046: Imprint Dates: corrected, fictitious or false.  This is under
discussion in MARBI.  


240/245/246:	There has already been extended discussion of sort, display,
and search problems related to the transcription of certain letters (i/j,
u/v/w, digraphs & ligatures).  Are there other issues, such as 246 vs.
740 that relate specifically to early books?


	Spelling variations/errors, use of "sic" (filing/sort issue)

	Numerals (e.g., VIII vs. 8 vs. spelled out: some of this covered in
RI's)

	Expanded abbreviations: filing/sort issues?

	245/Title begins with "non-filing" element (e.g., Publii Vergilii
Maronis Opera ...)

	Initial articles in uniform titles (240, 246, 630/730, and/or $t): under
discussion in MARBI

	Other title situations?


246: various uses (cf. DCRB 7C4):


	Cover title

	Caption title

	Running title

	Other title variations


When to use 500 (and 740) instead of 246?


	 For use of 740 at present see examples of 740's in MARC FORMATS.  Many
"titles" that used to go into 740 (with possibly a 500 justifying note)
now go into 246, but not all.


Note fields: Use of $3; location/copy specific data


	How does $3 affect formulating copy-specific or other notes?  I just
give some examples of what I have in mind


	561 $3Copy 1:$aSigned in ms.: Alex. Pope.$5CU-BANC

	561 $3Copy 2:$aBookplate of Henry J. Kaiser.$5CU-BANC

	500 $3Copy 1:$aBound in Batik by Joseph H. Howard.$5CU-BANC

	500 $3Copy 2:$aPrinted on vellum.$5CU-BANC

	500 Library copy imperfect: title page is lacking; supplied in
facsimile.$5CU-BANC

	

	1) I note that MARC Formats has several examples of what I would call
"Provenance" notes tagged as 500, with the clear implication that 500 is
the preferred field for "Provenance" of printed items.  Most of the
examples under 561 apply to collections of papers & similar archival
collections, and the field definition appears to have archival materials,
and archival meaning of  "provenance" in mind.  However, one example is 
a single item, probably a printed book.  This question of the appropriate
field for provenance information needs some discussion/resolution. 
Personally I dislike having to use one field for printed items to
indicate "ownership and custodial history" and another field for archival
materials.  I think also this is confusing to most people not familiar
with the fine points of rare books and archival theory, let alone MARC
tags!


	2) I know this is not the way these situations are currently handled at
many institutions, certainly not at my place, Bancroft.  I simply want to
raise questions in terms of the present integrated MARC Formats.  Also,
published MARC Formats tends to put $3 at beginning of field, as above;
samples in OCLC documentation tend to put $3 at end.


Note fields: Other


	506/540:	Could we use some examples for Early books?  For instance, at
Bancroft, all incunabula require "Curator's permission" for use, & this
is noted in the catalog record.


	520:		Use for summary 7C15?


Digitization:


Bearing in mind TEI (Text Encoding Initiative) I just want to raise the
matter of tagging for digitized versions.  I've attached Bancroft's
instructions for mss. & pictorials (I think we've used twice for printed
item/digital version).  Fields of concern are 530 and 856.


There are lots of questions about digitized versions.  Basic one I would
ask is: should a digitized version be cataloged separately (cf. separate
cataloging for microform version)? I'm inclined to say yes (is it REALLY
a digitized version of what's represented by the "hard copy" catalog
record? ) I just want to put URL/Separate record discussion on the table,
if its not already. 


<bold>Finally

</bold>

What have I missed that is DCRB specific and a problem or new since last
revision of DCRB vis-a-vis MARC?  I've deliberately (with 2 exceptions)
avoided 1XX, 6XX, 7XX, or 8XX as being generally outside the scope of
DCRB. But I do think that in some cases "headings" may need some
discussion with respect to DCRB, "uniform titles" being an example.


Thanks,


Patrick


P.s. 856 document is in WordPerfect 6.1, but you should be able to open
in MsWord.  Let me know if you can't open, and I'll paste a copy into an
email for you.