NAME: Notes in the USMARC Holdings Format
SOURCE: Harvard University
SUMMARY: This paper summarizes the note fields in the USMARC Holdings Format and suggests the inclusion of additional note fields that contain copy specific information but are currently defined only in the USMARC Bibliographic Format. If these fields are defined in holdings, it considers whether the tags should remain the same as in the bibliographic format or whether they should use different tags in holdings.
KEYWORDS: Note Fields [Holdings]
5/1/97 - Forwarded to USMARC Advisory Group for discussion at the June 1997 MARBI meetings.
6/29/97 - Results of USMARC Advisory Group discussion - Some concern was expressed that any field with a subfield $5 could also be defined in the Holdings format, since it can be local in nature. A suggestion was made to make $5 obsolete in bibliographic fields and define those fields only in Holdings. However, there was not much support for this suggestion, since many communities (especially Rare Books) are used to seeing local notes in the bibligraphic record, and holdings records are generally not indexed by systems. Members of the Rare Book community are interested in using the $8 linking technique to link notes fields to field 852; in this case a new link code would need to be defined for this $8 use. LC should prepare the following papers to continue this discussion:
1) a proposal to define fields 541, 561 and 562 in the Holdings format.
2) a discussion paper to deal with more general issues of: whether to take note fields out of the bibliographic format that are local in nature; whether note fields defined in holdings should retain the same tag as in bibliographic or use a different tag in holdings.
DISCUSSION PAPER NO. 101: Notes in the USMARC Holdings Format 1. INTRODUCTION The USMARC Holdings Format has several note fields that are also defined in the USMARC Bibliographic Format. These fields contain information that may be appropriate at the copy level, rather than only at the bibliographic level. Note fields in both formats are: 533 (843 in Holdings) Reproduction Note 540 (845 in Holdings) Terms Governing Use and Reproduction Note 583 (same in Holdings) Action Note Other fields that exist in both formats include (among others): 007 (Physical Description Fixed Field); 010 (Library of Congress Control Number); 020 (International Standard Bibliographic Number); 022 (International Standard Serial Number), etc. These fields use the same tags in both formats. Other notes that are by their nature specific to a given holding exist in the USMARC Bibliographic Format, but have not been defined in the USMARC Holdings Format. These are: 541 Immediate Source of Acquisition 561 Provenance (renamed in February 1997 as Ownership and Custodial History) 562 Copy and Version Identification Note In a message sent to the USMARC list in October 1996 the need was expressed for the above fields to be added to the holdings format so that such information could be communicated at the holdings or copy level. Another field that might be considered is field 506 (Restrictions on Access Note). The USMARC Advisory Group agreed in February 1997 to consider this issue at the next meeting. 2. DISCUSSION Harvard University has expressed a need to include note fields at the holdings level for certain types of notes that are only defined in the bibliographic format. When information in one of these note fields (for example fields 541 (Immediate Source of Acquisition) and 562 (Copy and Version Identification Note)), applies only to a particular copy, Harvard stores the fields internally at the holdings level. Harvard can export holdings information either embedded in the bibliographic record or in separate holdings records. When embedding holdings, it exports one copy of the bibliographic record per holdings segment; the receiving system then manipulates the data and de-dups the bibliographic record as needed. The holdings format allows for communicating the separate holdings records, linked to the bibliographic record by field 004 (Control Number for Related Bibliographic Record) after the bibliographic record is distributed. When Harvard distributes one copy of the bibliographic record with multiple separate holdings records, information in these copy-specific note fields that cannot be legally communicated in holdings records must be dropped or included in the bibliographic record without indicating to which copy the information applies. This practice would result in ambiguity of the copy/holdings information that is communicated. RLG implemented the USMARC Holdings Format in RLIN in 1996. In the system, holdings data (whether for single or multiple copies) are contained in a holdings segment attached to the bibliographic segment of the record. Fields that are copy specific in nature but do not exist in holdings have to be displayed with the bibliographic segment even if there are multiple copies. In addition, fields like 583 that exist with the same tag in both formats create special problems for the system, since it is not possible to determine unambiguously whether they are intended to go with the bibliographic or holdings data. In cases like field 533 that carries a different tag in holdings, RLG staff has pointed out that it is clear whether the field is appropriate at the bibliographic or holdings level. If additional note fields are defined in holdings, whether to use the same or a different tag must be considered. However, having different tags is more difficult for staff creating the records since they have to remember one tag in bibliographic and a different one in holdings. In addition, it is a USMARC principle to use the same tag for the same type of data. The USMARC Holdings Format specifies the conditions under which an agency can embed holdings data in bibliographic records and those under which it must communicate separate holdings records. It stipulates that when holdings are reported for a single location the information may be embedded. If holdings are reported for multiple copies and the location or call number data elements vary, multiple 852 fields are used. They can be embedded in a bibliographic record only if there are no other associated fields (e.g., 007, 842, 844, 853-855, 86X, 76X) unless these associated fields are applicable to all copies/locations. RLG felt that it was more consistent to require holdings data always to be in holdings records whether for single or multiple copies, and that this would allow for note fields to be unambiguously attached to the copies to which they relate. To achieve this, certain note fields that may apply only to a particular holdings segment need to be available in the holdings format. 3. QUESTIONS FOR FURTHER DISCUSSION 1. Should the following note fields that can be copy specific be defined in the USMARC Holdings Format? 541 Immediate Source of Acquisition 561 Provenance Note (now: Ownership and Custodial History) 562 Copy and Version Identification Note 2. Are there any other bibliographic note fields that should be defined in holdings because they are by their nature copy specific (e.g. field 506)? 3. If defined in holdings, should the field retain the same tag as in the bibliographic format, or should new tags be used? Alternatively, if the same tag is used, should something in the field indicate whether it is being used at the bibliographic or holdings level (e.g. an indicator value) in case it is embedded in a bibliographic record? 4. Should the provisions of the holdings format dealing with embedding holdings fields in bibliographic records be reconsidered? 5. Are there copy-specific note fields that should be used only in the Holdings Format?