LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for PCCLIST Archives


PCCLIST Archives

PCCLIST Archives


PCCLIST@LISTSERV.LOC.GOV


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

PCCLIST Home

PCCLIST Home

PCCLIST  November 2014

PCCLIST November 2014

Subject:

Re: Bound-withs in RDA

From:

"Theroux, Manon (Secretary)" <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Program for Cooperative Cataloging <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Wed, 19 Nov 2014 16:26:12 +0000

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (1 lines)

In Descriptive Cataloging of Rare Materials (Books), aka DCRM(B), Introduction. VIII.2 calls for doing just as Deborah suggests:

- “Local note” indicates a note describing copy‐specific information not affecting areas 1‐6 that is required if applicable (see 7B19). It must be clearly identified as a local note according to the provisions of 7B19.1.1. Copy‐specific information that does affect areas 1‐6, such as basing the description on an imperfect copy (see 0B2.2), is required and recorded in a general note.
- “Optional local note” indicates that the note describing copy‐specific information is not required.

Rule 0B2.2 (imperfect copies) emphasizes this as well:
- If no reliable evidence of the details of a perfect copy is available, describe the copy as it is. Make a general note indicating that the description is based on an imperfect copy.

In Examples to Accompany DCRM(B), example no. 19 illustrates this rule:

260 ## En Barcelona : $b Por Sebastian Mateu[...], acosta de Iua[...] , $c ano 1621.
300 ## [8], 1080, [48+] p. ; $c 22 cm (4to)
500 ## Description based on imperfect copy: lacks lower right portion of t.p., with partial loss of imprint, and all after p. [48] of third sequence.

Manon

--
Manon Théroux
Head of Technical Services
U.S. Senate Library
SR-B15 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, DC  20510-7112
202-224-3833 (phone)
202-224-0879 (fax)
[log in to unmask]




-----Original Message-----
From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Deborah J. Leslie
Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2014 10:22 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] Bound-withs in RDA

Hi Will,

In that circumstance, I make it a general note even though it refers to a specific copy, if that is the justification for, say, a date or an author attribution. This usually only comes into play when we're cataloging a previously-unrecorded title or edition, but presumably that information would stay with the record as a general note unless and until another justification was found that did not rely on the characteristic peculiar to the copy. 

Deborah J. Leslie | Folger Shakespeare Library | [log in to unmask] | 202.675-0369 | 201 East Capitol St., SE, Washington, DC 20003 | www. folger.edu

-----Original Message-----
From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Will Evans
Sent: Wednesday, 19 November 2014 08:45
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] Bound-withs in RDA

> why OCLC does not automatically strip out all fields coded $5 from the
master records, just as it now strips 590's and 852's.

> Some of those fields may be local data, but are also very useful to
others


Additionally, I've used a 500 note coded $5 for information specific to the item in my hand (e.g. an manuscript annotation), but also serves to justify information I provided in areas 1-5.



Best,

Will


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Will Evans
Chief Rare Materials Catalog Librarian
Library of the Boston Athenaeum
10 1/2 Beacon Street
Boston, MA   02108

Tel:  617-227-0270 ext. 224
Fax: 617-227-5266
www.bostonathenaeum.org



-----Original Message-----
From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Adam L. Schiff
Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2014 1:59 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] Bound-withs in RDA

Some of those fields may be local data, but are also very useful to others.  For example, if we have made a preservation facsimile of a book, that's important for everyone to know, so that they can decide what to do with their damaged copy of the book and can know where they can obtain a replacement copy.  So I would be very careful about just stripping all local fields from master records.

Adam Schiff

**************************************
* Adam L. Schiff                     *
* Principal Cataloger                *
* University of Washington Libraries *
* Box 352900                         *
* Seattle, WA 98195-2900             *
* (206) 543-8409                     *
* (206) 685-8782 fax                 *
* [log in to unmask]           *
**************************************

On Tue, 18 Nov 2014, Deborah J. Leslie wrote:

> Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2014 16:33:43 +0000
> From: Deborah J. Leslie <[log in to unmask]>
> Reply-To: Program for Cooperative Cataloging 
> <[log in to unmask]>
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Bound-withs in RDA
>
> Coming to this discussion late. I'm in agreement with Richard Noble 
> and
others that item information does not belong in a description of the manifestation. What I wonder, and continue to wonder, is why OCLC does not automatically strip out all fields coded ?5 from the master records, just as it now strips 590's and 852's.
>
> Deborah J. Leslie | Folger Shakespeare Library | [log in to unmask] |
> 202.675-0369 | 201 East Capitol St., SE, Washington, DC 20003 | www.
> folger.edu
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging 
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Ted P Gemberling
> Sent: Friday, 31 October 2014 13:30
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] Bound-withs in RDA
>
> Ed,
> I agree that such notes are good to put on the master record at times. 
> I
think you can argue that in a sense they're not local notes, or maybe better, they're not *strictly* local notes, since while reporting something in your local copy, they may be important for identifying the resource to any library that has it. I think your first example is definitely something you'd want to include in a 500 with a subfield 5.
Without it, other libraries may not be able to identify 260 information.
Actually, given the handwritten note, I would think you'd be justified in putting Seattle in brackets in the 260 or 264.
>
> I'm not as sure I'd put the notes in your second example in a master
record. If it was clear that the binder was supposed to have price lists or other things in it, you could just include a 500 with something like "with space for price lists from contractors." Then researchers that were interested in the price lists could check the copies in various libraries to see which ones had them and which contractors they were. That sort of situation seems possible. But since this work seems unique to Tyonek, not a generic work on culverts, I'd think that including the specifics on the record would be appropriate.
>
> Just some thoughts.
> Ted Gemberling
> UAB Lister Hill Library
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging 
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Ed M. Kazzimir
> Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2014 3:21 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] Bound-withs in RDA
>
> I think in an OPAC local notes should ideally be stored as associated
fields somehow linked by record number so they are safe when a record is replaced--maybe someday in a FRBR copy record or institution sub-record.
While it may not be ideal to have local notes embedded in the master record, I still think such notes can be informative to other libraries and should display somehow in a shared (OCLC) system.
>
> There are a few, rare times when I have entered a local note in the
master OCLC record because the note can be helpful to another cataloger, other library staff, or user in identifying the item or discovering related items.  Examples (AACR2 non-PCC records):
>
> 1)
> 260    [S.l. : $b s.n., $c 1990?]
> 500    Handwritten note on copy: Unpublished manuscript. International
Workshop on Population Ecology and Management of Walrus. Seattle, WA, April 1990. $5 AkARLIS
>
> This handwritten note may not be on everyone's copy, but is 
> nevertheless
important in identifying the item--when and where it is from.  I think every user of this bibl. record ought to know this.  Perhaps the note
could simply read "500   Cataloging agency has copy with handwritten ..."
or "500   ARLIS Library has copy with ..." without $5.  But without $5 I
am afraid someone will say "that's local information" and zap it out.  At least the $5 method says "it's local but leave it in there".
>
> 2)
> 500   This binder contains nine reports on culverts that span various
creeks in the area of Tyonek, Alaska. ... blah, blah ...
> 500   ARLIS copy accompanied by: (1) a price list for culverts from
Contech/ Culfabco (2 pages), and (2) a memorandum dated ... $5 ARLIS
> 505   [list of nine reports]
> 501   ARLIS: With: [Price list for culverts from Contech/Culfabco] --
Beluga/Tyonek trip report ... ... $5 ARLIS
> (500 is a descriptive note.  501 is formatted as a regular contents 
> note.  I like both.)
>
> In addition to the nine reports, loose papers were placed in the 
> binder flap that are directly related to the reports.  I'm not sure 
> whether every copy of the binder has these, but these papers are 
> useful and they were intended to be shared in the binder.  An outside
> (non-local) researcher might be interested in knowing the papers exist 
> somewhere.  Somehow in OCLC this information ought to be shared, 
> particularly if the items don't normally warrant separate cataloging.
> (I suppose now if a record has lots of $5 subfields, the pieces might 
> need separate cataloging so I may look back at this item.)
>
> Upon transferring to our OPAC, I could edit such fields into a 590 
> local
field prefaced by the library name/acronym in front (the usual procedure
for notes input locally in our consortial catalog), like:  590   ARLIS:
...   Or I could remove $5 if the note already identifies my library, as
the note will be retained (if still existing in the OCLC record) if ever overlaid in our OPAC.  But I keep these $5 subfields for now as they are, as I find it useful to locate these records in the OPAC by that code.
>
>
> Ed Kazzimir
> ARLIS
>

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Adam L. Schiff
Principal Cataloger
University of Washington Libraries
Box 352900
Seattle, WA 98195-2900
(206) 543-8409
(206) 685-8782 fax
[log in to unmask]
http://faculty.washington.edu/~aschiff
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

July 2021
June 2021
May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
January 2002
December 2001
November 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
July 2001
June 2001
May 2001
April 2001
March 2001
February 2001
January 2001
December 2000
November 2000
October 2000
September 2000
August 2000
July 2000
June 2000
May 2000
April 2000
March 2000
February 2000
January 2000
December 1999
November 1999
October 1999
September 1999
August 1999
July 1999
June 1999
May 1999
April 1999
March 1999
February 1999
January 1999
December 1998
November 1998
October 1998
September 1998
August 1998
July 1998
June 1998
May 1998
April 1998
March 1998
February 1998
January 1998
December 1997
November 1997
October 1997

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.LOC.GOV

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager
https://listserv.loc.gov/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind1411&L=PCCLIST&D=0&O=A&P=24404
listserv.loc.gov
crawl=CC-MAIN-2021-31
71271
application/http; msgtype=response
sha1:TCYBSESOQJKBENLZPNW6CWNUPZZ3DC5R
<urn:uuid:0e11ca03-d110-47f1-b5d3-eed968d8d57e>
2021-07-24T00:00:38Z
140.147.239.86
text/html
sha1:OY6HSNFR6AFZ3DOYPL37ZBBZYTWLG2PR
<urn:uuid:e8e58f7f-9725-4e2f-9928-7acca0929b01>
https://listserv.loc.gov/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind1411&L=PCCLIST&D=0&O=A&P=24404
response
<urn:uuid:85dfa0f5-4168-4a93-a4c2-2fbffa51f194>
isPartOf: CC-MAIN-2021-31
publisher: Common Crawl
description: Wide crawl of the web for July/August 2021
operator: Common Crawl Admin (info@commoncrawl.org)
hostname: ip-10-67-67-178.ec2.internal
software: Apache Nutch 1.18 (modified, https://github.com/commoncrawl/nutch/)
robots: checked via crawler-commons 1.2-SNAPSHOT (https://github.com/crawler-commons/crawler-commons)
format: WARC File Format 1.1
conformsTo: https://iipc.github.io/warc-specifications/specifications/warc-format/warc-1.1/