---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 1996 13:40:25 -0800
From: Mitch Turitz <turitz@SFSU.EDU>
Subject: MARBI prop.95-6 and MULVER

CROSS-POSTED TO AUTOCAT, USMARC, AND SERIALST
=============================================

The following are my personal notes from the MARBI meeting that occurred
on Saturday, January 20, 1996.  I am only addressing one proposal that
was discussed as it relates to multiple versions (mulver) which is only
indirectly referred to in the proposal.  The multiple versions issue
has been near and dear to me for many years now and there finally seems
to be break in the long delay between the publishing of the CC:DA
"Guidelines for the bibliographic description of reproductions" and
this MARBI proposal to implement a new subfield to accomodate the
guidelines.

These are NOT to be considered official notes of MARBI or anyone other
than myself.  So any errors in them are mine as well, and I apoligize in
advance if I have not recordered everything correctly or if I may have
misinterpreted something.

I am not going to reproduce the proposal here, but will discuss it
briefly.  Basically, with the acceptance of the new subfield $8, we will
now be able to "legally" do what we have been doing "illegally" for many
years now - to use one bibliographic record to accomodate multiple
holdings of different formats.  Although intended to be used just for
microform reproductions, there essentially would be no reason why it could
not be used on regular-print reproductions, on-demand reproductions, and
even other formats.  Basically, the problem with the CC:DA "Guidelines for
the bibliographic description of reproductions" is that it does not
expalin how bibliographic fields from different versions are separated out
from the description of the original version. (Since it was not the charge
of the CC:DA Task Force to decide on what fields should be used, it could
not do so, as that is the purview of MARBI, not CC:DA.) Subfield $8 is
designed specifically do do just that.

=======================================================================
MARBI (ALCTS/LITA/RASD Machine-Readable Bibliographic Information Committee)

USMARC home page is:  http://www.loc.gov/marc

Proposal no. 95-6  Linking code for Reproduction Information in the
USMARC bibliographic Formate (revised).

This proposal is MARBI's response to CC:DA's Guidelines for the
Bibliographic Description of Reproductions.  Once CC:DA decided what
should be described in the bibliographic record (for the multiple
versions issues) it then became MARBI's charge to figure out what
fields/subfields to use to accomodate it.  The discussion centered on the
new "$8" which would be used to distinguish data through "field to field
linking."  For each field not in the original, subfield $8, with a
link-number and field-link type, 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. (You really have to see the full document and examples to clearly
understand this. -- Mitch)

There was discussion of the order of the subfields (especially regarding
"$6" for CJK and how that may cause problems).  Desire was expressed for
one record with a repeatable 533.  Problems with 007 were also discussed
and the problems of linking the 008 to a particular reproduction.

The goal is to have separate records in the large shared databases (e.g.
OCLC) with links to the original record (model A), but in your own local
system would have the option of any of the models (B & C).  The
bibliographic view (not the holdings) is the emphasis of the proposal.

It was decided that if there is only one reproduction then the 533 does
not need a $8.  However, if there is more than one reproduction in the
same record, then the 533's would require the $8.

The model "A" (separate records) would be used for communication among
shared systems.  Only using a single reproduction at a time.  (I did not
understand why there was reluctance to support more than one at a time,
but the issue would not be discussed)

The proposal was accepted after a very long discussion.

-- Mitch
  _^_                                                 _^_
( ___ )-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-( ___ )
 |   |                                               |   |
 |   |     Mitch Turitz, Serials Librarian           |   |
 |   |     San Francisco State University Library    |   |
 |   |     Internet: turitz@sfsu.edu                 |   |
 |   |                                               |   |
( ___ )-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-==-=-=-=-=-==-( ___ )
   V                                                   V
       Rule #1: Don't sweat the small stuff.
       Rule #2: It's ALL small stuff.