December 1, 1995
NAME: Linking Code for Reproduction Information in the USMARC Bibliographic Format
SUMMARY: A code is proposed for use in marking the fields pertaining to a reproduction that are added to a record for an original when creating the record for the reproduction. The technique and code use the subfield $8 (Field link and sequence number) to identify the added fields.RELATED: 94-15 (June 1994); DP67 (June 1993)
KEYWORDS: Field linking; Linking fields; Reproductions; Subfield $8 (Field link and sequence number; Value r (reproduction); Versions
12/2/94 - Forwarded to USMARC Advisory Group for discussion at the February 1995 MARBI meeting.
2/6/95 - Results of USMARC Advisory Group discussion - Discussion indicated that marking reproduction-related fields was needed and the $8 is the appropriate mechanism. $8 should probably be required for all reproduction fields (except 007), although a question remains about field 533, especially when it is the only reproduction field besides 007. Additional discussion needed on use of existing subfields in the field 533. Continue discussion at June 1995 meeting.5/5/95 - Slightly revised version forwarded to the USMARC Advisory Group for discussion at the June 1995 MARBI meeting.
6/24/95 - Results of USMARC Advisory Group discussion - Discussion indicated that the proposed change as specified is acceptable but the following needs to be added or adjusted:
- $8 not needed for 533,
- code value r is acceptable,
- order of numeric subfields needs to be indicated,
- use of 245 $h in record for reproduction needs to be treated,
- relating of 007s to multiple 533s needs to be treated. Continue discussion at the January 1996 meeting.
12/1/94 - Forwarded to USMARC Advisory Group for discussion at the January 1996 MARBI meeting.
1/20/96 - Results of USMARC Advisory Group discussion - Approved with the following specifications:
- Model A is preferred used for communications records.
- Value r is defined for use with subfield $8.
- Field 533 is to be used for all data describing the reproduction that is defined for that field; use 007 as applicable; code 008/23 for the reproduction; add $h (Media) to the title field 245 if applicable; use field 776 (Additional Physical Form Entry) to link to the record for the original; subfield $8 not required for any of these fields.
- Other fields that relate only to the reproduction may be used as needed with subfield $8 in each, but not fields 260, 300, 490, or 500 which duplicate those found in field 533. - If multiple numeric subfields occur in the record, the first subfield in the field should be $6, but the remaining numeric subfields may occur in any order.
2/15/96 - Results of final LC review - Agreed with MARBI decision.
PROPOSAL NO. 95-6: Linking Code for Reproduction Information 1. BACKGROUND Discussion Paper 67 (April 1993) suggested continuing the full record approach to records for reproductions, in the light of the lack of success in implementing the Holdings format as the solution. A forum held in 1989 had recommended the general implementation and use of the Holdings format as an efficient method of communicating records for reproductions, especially records for preservation microforms. In the succeeding years the community, led by LC, had largely continued to create instead full records for reproductions by cloning the records for the originals and adding fields that provide information about the reproduction. Recently there has also been a trend toward simply adding the information about the reproduction to the record for the original, without cloning the record first. CC:DA studied the problem of descriptions of reproductions for several years and concluded that a variety of data elements might be needed to bring out additional information concerning only the reproduction. The CC:DA paper also defines situations where an item is to be treated as a reproduction. The completion of the CC:DA document enabled MARBI to consider again the formatting of records for reproductions. At the MARBI meeting in 1993 when DP 67 was discussed, some system representatives who wanted to be able to use Holdings records or some other type of reduced records for reproductions in their internal systems requested that information be included in the communications record to mark the fields that were added to the original when it was cloned and/or augmented for the reproduction. Thus the communications formatted record for a reproduction could continue to be a full record but systems that did not want to hold the record in that manner could recognize and strip the duplicative fields and then reattach them if further communication of the record were needed. 2. DISCUSSION Scope Standardization of the treatment of reproductions has had a difficult recent history in bibliographic control and record creation. This is partly because the problem is usually treated very broadly, yet the characteristics of reproductions vary considerably in different media. There are additional difficulties of identifying originals when productions are simultaneous. The potential and versatility of the computer is making the problem even more complex. It is also not clear how important some reproduction information is to users. And of course users are not standard and have many different needs. In trying to deal with the whole environment we have failed to standardize, except informally, one very large and important group of reproductions, microforms. This media is mature and stable enough for its characteristics to be understood, and it is and will continue to be a very important tool for preservation of material. While we are digitizing a great deal of material for current use, we are not yet sure of the life of digital material, whereas, there is scientific information concerning the preservation qualities of microforms. In presenting the following technique, there is a focus on microform reproductions. The technique may be useful for other forms of reproductions, but they should perhaps be evaluated separately in order to assure adequate treatment of the nuances of the many types of media that have reproduction or multiproduction characteristics. One step in this direction for computer formats is DP92 on the general treatment of computer media in the MARC formats. A focus on microforms does not exclude use of the technique for other forms of reproductions. Models Three general models for internal system records need to be possible from the USMARC communications record: A one record for original and one for each microform reproduction containing the whole of the record for the original plus additional fields needed for the reproduction; B one record for original and microform reproductions; C one record for the original and one reduced record for each reproduction containing only the fields pertaining to the reproduction. Models B and C are especially attractive 1) for local systems, where multiple holdings institutions do not need to attach holdings information to the correct version of an item, 2) for monographs where complex detailed holdings are not needed, and 3) for systems not engaged in the supply of individual records to users for specific items that the users own. Models B and C avoid the multiplicity of records for the same work and accompanying extra indexing. Model A is attractive in large multiuser systems where holdings need to be associated with the correct reproduction and where records are supplied to customers individually. It is also best for the exchange environment where a partial record exchanged may be unintelligible to the receiver. For this discussion of microform reproductions, Model A is the basic model for the exchange record with a goal of making possible storage of the data in local systems using Models B and C. The essential elements for creation of records conforming to Model A as it is now used informally by many systems and as indicated in the MARC formats are the following for microform reproductions. - Copy the record for the original. - Add a microform 007 pertaining to the microform. - Change the 008/23 to indicate the form of microform being cataloged. - Add a $h (Medium) subfield to the 245 field. - Add 533 giving the imprint, collation, series and any note information pertaining to the reproduction. - Add 776 pointing to the record for the original. - Add any added entries needed to describe the reproduction. The primary problem for local systems when trying to reduce the records for Model C or change them to combined records for Model B is the last item above, identification of the fields other than the 007 and 533 that have been added to the record for the original. Marker technique Proposal 94-15 established a technique for field to field linking. The pertinent parts of the general structure for the field linking technique is to add a subfield $8 (Field link and sequence number) to each field to be linked with the following content: $8<link-number>\<field-link-type> The link-number is the same for all the fields that are to be linked, and it can be any number. The field-link-type is a code indicating the reason the fields are linked. The link-number is mandatory and the field-link-type is mandatory except when the subfield is used to link enumeration and chronology subfields in holdings data. No field-link-type codes for use with the linking technique were approved with 94-15 since the situations for field to field linking are varied and each is to be considered separately. (The link-number can optionally be followed by ".sequence-number", if sequencing is needed, but since it is not in this use of the technique, it has been omitted from the discussion.) The marker needed to identify fields pertaining to the reproduction may be viewed as "a link among the fields that were added to the record for the original and that pertain to the reproduction". For each field not in the original, subfield $8 with the above information would be added. Link-number will be the same for all fields relating to a particular reproduction. A code for the field-link-type (r=reproduction) would identify the reason for the linkage. See example in Appendix. Fields to be used Standardization of fields to be used for the reproduction data added is important. The USMARC format contains already field 533 (Reproduction Note) which has been used extensively for records for, especially, microform reproductions. Field 533 accommodates a number of the data elements most likely to be needed, especially for recording a microform reproduction: type of reproduction; imprint information (agency, place and date of reproduction); physical description; series statement; serial dates; notes; and 7 fixed field (008) data elements. These subfields were established because they would cover most of the needs for additional data on the reproduction. For any other data elements, the regular fields of the format with subfield $8 would be used. Format data elements that duplicate the subfields in field 533 (fields 260, 300, 490, and 500) would not be used for reproduction data. This method would provide consistency with the large number of existing records for reproductions. Field 533 does not need to contain subfield $8, because it is redundant since the field tag identifies it as a field pertaining to the reproduction. 007 The 007 field for a microform (or for another form of material) cannot be marked with a $8 subfield. It can be identified as pertaining to the reproduction by its tag (007) and type, 007/00 = h (microform). 008 Presently only one data element in the 008 field is changed to reflect the characteristics of certain microform and print-related reproduction types: 008/23 (Form of item)(BK, SE, MU, MX). 008/23 values are micro and macro format oriented: microfilm, microfiche, microopaque, large print, braille, regular print reproduction. They would only be coded for the reproduction in the case of those types of reproductions. Order of numeric subfields The MARC formats have defined 7 numeric subfields: $2 for source or system, $3 for materials specified, $4 for relator code, $5 for institution and copy information, $6 for alternate graphic link, $7 for control information, and $8 for other link. By example in the formats $3, $6, $7, $8 are placed at the beginning of fields, and $2, $4, and $5 are placed at the end of fields (with a few exceptions for $3 and $7). There are statements relating to placement included under Bibliographic field 880, $6 always first; under Bibliographic field 852, $3 always first; and under Holdings fields 8XX fields, $8 always first. It is only recently that the $6 and $8 have been defined in more instances for the same fields, and they highlight this conflict in instruction. The following practice for the placement of the numeric subfields is recommended: Numeric subfields $3, $6, $7, and $8 are to precede all other subfields in a field and numeric subfields $2, $4, and $5 are to follow all other subfields. When multiple numeric subfields are needed before the other subfields, they are arranged in ascending numeric order, and the same order applies to multiple numeric subfields at the end of a field. Use of $h in 245 field Currently the cataloging rules used by many institutions calls for recording the form of an item in subfield $h (Medium) of the 245 (Title Statement). The 245 field is therefore not exactly like it appears in the record for the original. The recommendation is not to mark this field with an $8 subfield, as generally the addition of the $h can be expected. 3. PROPOSED CHANGE --Define a field-link-type code for use in subfield $8 (Field link and sequence number) in the Bibliographic format: r = reproduction The code, used in a record for a reproduction, identifies fields linked because they contain information concerning only the reproduction where all other descriptive data pertains to the original (with the exception of the 007, 008/23, 245, and 533 noted above). --Fields used for data: Use field 533 for all data describing the reproduction that is defined for that field. Use 007 as applicable. Code 008/23 for the reproduction. Add $h (Media) to the title field 245. If multiple numeric subfields occur in the record, their order will be $3, $6. $7, $8, all occurring before the data in the field, and $2, $4, $5, placed after the data in the field. Use field 776 (Additional Physical Form Entry) to link to the record for the original, with subfield $8 added. Use other fields that relate only to the reproduction as needed with subfield $8 in each, but not fields 260, 300, 490, or 500 which duplicate those found in field 533. _________________________________________________________________ APPENDIX: EXAMPLES Serial reproduced on microfilm Record for the original: 001 sf89-91551 008/23 # (None of the following) 245 04$aThe New-York mirror, and ladies' literary gazette 246 10$aNew York mirror, and ladies' literary gazette 260 ##$aNew York :$bG.P. Morris,$c1823-1830. 300 ##$a7 v. 310 ##$aWeekly 362 0#$aVol. 1, no. 1 (Aug. 2, 1823)-v. 7, no. 52 (July 3, 1830). 780 05$tCritic$w(DLC)sf89091554 785 00$tNew-York mirror$w(DLC)sf89091552 Record for the microfilm: 001 sf89-91553 007 <microform> 008/23 a (Microfilm) 245 04$aThe New-York mirror, and ladies' literary gazette$h[microform] 246 10$aNew York mirror, and ladies' literary gazette 260 ##$aNew York :$bG.P. Morris,$c1823-1830. 300 ##$a7 v. 310 ##$aWeekly 362 0#$aVol. 1, no. 1 (Aug. 2, 1823)-v. 7, no. 52 (July 3, 1830). 533 ##$aMicrofilm.$bAnn Arbor, Mich. :#cUniversity Microfilms,#d1950.$e3 microfilm reels ; 35 mm.$f(American periodical series, 1800-1850 : 164-165, 785) 776 1#$84/r$tNew-York mirror, and ladies' literary gazette$w(DLC)sf89091551 780 05$tCritic$w(DLC)sf89091554 785 00$tNew-York mirror$w(DLC)sf89091552 830 #0$84/r$aAmerican periodical series, 1800-1850 ;$v164- 165, 785. Map reproduced on microfilm Record for the original: 001 49-254 007 <map> 008/23 # (None of the following) 245 10$a[Poland]. 255 ##$aScale 1:100,000. 260 ##$aWarszawa :$bWojskowy Instytut Geograficsny,$c1922- 1935. 300 ##$aca. 1,000 maps :$bcol. ;$c28 x 37 cm. 500 ##$aIncludes multiple editions of some sheets. Record for the microform: 007 <microform> 007 <map> 008/23 a (Microfilm) 245 10$a[Poland]$h[microform]. 255 ##$aScale 1:100,000. 260 ##$aWarszawa :$bWojskowy Instytut Geograficsny,$c1922- 1935. 300 ##$aca. 1,000 maps :$bcol. ;$c28 x 37 cm. 500 ##$aIncludes multiple editions of some sheets. 533 ##$aMicrofiche.$b[Santa Cruz, Calif. :$cWestern Association of Map Libraries,$d1988]$e1.253 microfiches$nColor maps reproduced in black and white. 776 1#$81/r$tPoland$w(DLC)49-254