DCRB & MARC Format

[Robert L. Maxwell]

At 10:45 AM 1/25/99 -0800, Patrick wrote:

>>>>=20

<excerpt>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) =96 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.

</excerpt><<<<<<<<


I think official published USMARC should be our standard.


>>>>

<excerpt>


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.

</excerpt><<<<<<<<


I agree, though maybe we should not declare this out of scope until we
get a little farther along.


>>>>

<excerpt>


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.

</excerpt><<<<<<<<


We should have both--all examples within the rules should be tagged, and
we also need the examples publication, whether separate or as a section
of DCRM.


>>>>

<excerpt>


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?=20

</excerpt><<<<<<<<


We use MARC holdings format at BYU. I don't know if it is relevant. I
will keep this in mind as we go through the rules.


>>>>

<excerpt>


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

...

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.

</excerpt><<<<<<<<


Actually, there are extensive and explicit instructions in LCRI 21.30J on
the usage of 246 vs. 740, and I think we should follow them. We do need
to look at that LCRI carefully, but unless there is a need to part ways
for DCRM, I don't think we need to incorporate when to use 500/740 vs.
236 into the rare cataloging rules (except perhaps a summary with
reference to the LCRI).


>>>>

<excerpt>

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

=09

	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=20
a single item, probably a printed book.  This question of the appropriate
field for provenance information needs some discussion/resolution.=20
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!

</excerpt><<<<<<<<


I know there was recently a discussion on exlibris about 500 vs. 561 with
people generally taking the position that even after format integration
541 and 561 were for archival cataloging, but if so, I say (!), what was
the point of format integration? I do not think there is any MARC or LC
documentation backing up this division, and I think, if the field is
there, use it! We could take the lead in advocating the use of these
fields for monograph cataloging. (Actually, I have been using them
already in my cataloging here.)


>>>>

<excerpt>


	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?

</excerpt><<<<<<<<


I think we should take full advantage of all the available USMARC fields
and use them all as appropriate in our tagging of examples, whether
individual institutions prefer to use (e.g.) 500 for everything or not. I
assume, by the way, that as we get going on producing an actual revised
text we will have expert (i.e., LC) input and proofreading of our
examples for USMARC correctness. Is this a possibility, Jerry?


>>>>

<excerpt>


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.

</excerpt><<<<<<<<


Since this is an evolving area, we might want to allow some choice here
...


>>>>

<excerpt>=20


<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.

</excerpt><<<<<<<<


I think discussion of headings is fine as long as it is clear that since
we are dealing with an integrated catalog in most cases (both DCRM and
non-DCRM materials together) the headings must conform with each other;
i.e., DCRM really ought not to prescribe nonstandard headings.


Bob

=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=
=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D

Robert L. Maxwell

Special Collections and Ancient Languages Cataloger

6428 Harold B. Lee Library

Brigham Young University

Provo, UT 84602

(801) 378-5568

robert_maxwell@byu.edu

=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=
=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D