 |
 |
Error during command authentication.
Error - unable to initiate communication with LISTSERV (errno=10061, phase=CONNECT, target=127.0.0.1:2306). The server is probably not started.
Liz--
Hi! Thanks for all your diligent work in helping
keep MARC dynamic and responsive to librarians' needs!
The 506/540 subfield $u addition sounds good. A key
part of the proposal is that the subfield can't stand alone
as an unintelligible URL, but that it must be preceded by
some explanatory text.
I can't comment on the 026 field for fingerprints,
but I think it's always important to keep rare book
cataloguers happy. :-)
A resounding *yes* for the 563! For some books,
the binding is more important than the publication
itself, and in some libraries, the description of the
binding is the only way to find the book. (I happen to
think that binding info is relevant beyond the special
collections realm -- how many reference librarians have
had requests like "I want that big, bright green book
on gardening," or "I'd like to put a hold on the nice
copy of _A Christmas Carol_ that's red with little gold
holly leaves on the spine"?) I would even expand the
field with a subfield for dust jackets, something like:
563 ## $aBlue cloth binding ; $?red, white and blue
American flag motif dust jacket.$5Uk
The proposal doesn't state the sequence that this field
would fall into in the hierarchy of 5XX notes. It seems
almost like an extension of collation information. Say,
maybe instead of a separate field, the binding should be
a subfield in the 300 Physical Description....
Discussion Paper 2002-DP08 on expression-level
collocation proves that library science *is* a science.
Please let us know if the discussions in Atlanta cause
this truly "weighty issue" to move from the lofty heights
of philosophy and semantics into the real world of MARC
fields and authorities records!
--K.A. Bayruns
At 10:51 AM 5/31/02 -0400, you wrote:
>MARBI (Machine-Readable Bibliographic Information Committee) will be
>considering eight proposals and one discussion paper during its sessions
>at the American Library Association conference in Atlanta, June 15-17.
>The agenda, which has links to full texts of the papers, is available at
>http://lcweb.loc.gov/marc/marbi/an2002_age.html.
>
>Several of the papers cover issues of interest to art librarians. I have
>summarized these below. Please post your comments on the list, or, if
>you prefer, send them directly to me.
>
>Proposal 2002-10 proposes defining subfield $u for field 506
>(Restrictions on access note) and field 540 (Terms governing use and
>reproduction note) in the Bibliographic Format. This subfield would
>provide a direct link between bibliographic records and addressable
>electronic files containing current information about restrictions
>imposed on access, use and/or reproduction of materials described in the
>records. This would make detailed descriptions of policies available
>through the catalog, just a click away from the bibliographic record. It
>also has the advantage of making it easier to update the policies (the
>library has to change only one file, instead of hundreds of
>bibliographic records).
>
>Here is an example from the Prints and Photographs Division of the
>Library of Congress:
>
>100 1# $aBrumfield, William Craft, $d1944- $ephotographer.
>245 10 $aChurch of Zosima, Savvaty, and Herman (1900), with Legation of
>Solovetskii-Transfiguration Monastery (19th
>century), west view, Arkhangelsk, Russia $h[graphic].
>260 ## $c1999.
>300 ## $a1 slide : $bcolor ; $c35 mm.
>500 ## $aTitle, date, and place from photographer's inventory.
>506 ## $aDigital images provided in preference to originals as per
>Divisional preservational policy.
>540 ## $aReproduction is restricted through October 2014. See
>Restrictions Statement for more
>information:$uhttp://lcweb.loc.gov/rr/print/res/273_brum.html
>
>
>
>Proposal 2002-14 deals with changes to MARC21 requested by UK libraries,
>who are migrating from their own version of MARC to MARC21.
>
>One proposed change is the definition of a field 026 (Fingerprint
>Identifier) for use in identifying antiquarian books. "Fingerprints"
>consist of groups of characters taken from specified positions on
>specified pages of a book, in accordance with the principles laid down
>in various published guidelines.
>
>Questions:
>
>Does anyone reading this message record fingerprints for their rare
>books? Could the field be used for comparable schemes used for
>describing art objects?
>
>
>The UK libraries also propose a new field, Field 563, for binding
>information. At present, binding information must be recorded in a
>general 500 note, or a 590 note, which is used for local information of
>all kinds (and which has been effectively superseded by the definition
>of a subfield $5 to identify copy-specific information). The UKMARC
>community would like a field devoted to binding, to be able to
>distinguish this information from other bibliographic notes.
>
>Two examples of binding notes using the new field:
>
>563 ## $aLate 16th century blind-tooled centrepiece binding, dark brown
>calf.$5StEdNL
>563 ## $aGold-tooled morocco binding by Benjamin West, ca. 1840.$5Uk
>
>Questions:
>
>Are those who record binding information (principally rare book
>catalogers) in favor of a new field? What are the implications for
>existing records, which will have this information in a 5XX note?
>
>Acquisitions librarians may be interested in the UK libraries' proposal
>to define fields for acquisitions information on the bibliographic
>record. These fields are intended for use primarily by the book trade,
>rather than by libraries purchasing books. Field 363 would carry price
>information, field 364 would carry information about the availability of
>an item.
>
>Discussion Paper 2002-DP08 tackles the weighty issue of expression-level
>collocation in online systems. How do libraries pull together for their
>users all the manifestations of a work, as well as related material? For
>example, the library may own three texts published by different
>publishers of the same novel, AND an audiocassette of someone reading
>the novel, AND a video recording of a lecture analyzing the novel. All
>of these items might interest the same user, but how easy will it be for
>a user to tell from the display which is which? One approach mentioned
>in the paper is to create expression-based authority records (analogous
>to authority records for uniform titles, but one level more specific).
>The issue has implications for art librarians and visual resource
>curators; it will be interesting to hear from other communities, and to
>explore the various techniques that might be used.
>
>
>
>--
>Elizabeth O'Keefe
>Director of Collection Information Systems
>The Pierpont Morgan Library
>29 East 36th Street
>New York, NY 10016-3403
>
>TEL: 212 590-0380
>FAX: 212 685-4740
>NET: [log in to unmask]
>
>__________________________________________________________________
>Mail submissions to [log in to unmask]
>For information about joining ARLIS/NA see:
> http://www.arlisna.org//membership.html
>Send administrative matters (file requests, subscription requests, etc)
> to [log in to unmask]
>ARLIS-L Archives and subscription maintenance:
> http://lsv.uky.edu/archives/arlis-l.html
>Questions may be addressed to list owner (Kerri Scannell) at: [log in to unmask]
__________________________________________________________________
Mail submissions to [log in to unmask]
For information about joining ARLIS/NA see:
http://www.arlisna.org//membership.html
Send administrative matters (file requests, subscription requests, etc)
to [log in to unmask]
ARLIS-L Archives and subscription maintenance:
http://lsv.uky.edu/archives/arlis-l.html
Questions may be addressed to list owner (Kerri Scannell) at: [log in to unmask]