Copy-specific notes &
relator terms/codes

Local and copy-speciufic information

I. History and Rationale

Until 1994 cataloging was done on RLIN. Field 590 was used in both general and rare book cataloging for local and copy-specific information. The categories of notes for different printing and "photocopy" information were entered in SHNT subfield s. With the implementation to Advance SHNT was no longer available. A period of transition followed in which both fields 590 and 955 were being used for local and copy-specific information. Advance practice was to record copy-specific information in field 955$s as defined by RLIN. In order to conform with Advance, it was eventually decided that local notes would be entered in field 955 and usage of field 590 was almost totally eliminated, except in the case of music materials as described below. This local information is often of great value, particularly on rare items, to users and other catalogers, but unfortunately would not transfer to RLIN. When the New-York Historical Society Library began its affiliation with New York University in 1997, it became increasingly necessary to rectify this loss of information.

For rare book cataloging, including copy-specific notes in the bibliographic record is preferable to putting them in the holdings record (field 955) for the following reasons: information recorded in holdings records is not generally shared through the national utilities or other shared databases; in many systems holdings records do not have note fields long enough to accommodate rare book catalogers' notes; in some systems, notes in the holdings record do not appear in the public display; holdings records are less likely than 5XX fields to be included in keyword indexes; copy-specific notes are often complemented by special access points or added entries, which are found in the bibliographic record, e.g. fields 796 and 797; and, information contained in holdings records may be more susceptible to loss during migration from one system to another, especially, perhaps, in cases where notes have not appeared in the public display.

The music cataloger has used field 590 to describe the binding treatment of some or all volumes of a multi-volume score (e.g. vols. 1-5 bound together), of some or all volumes in a monographic series (e.g. item bound with cantatas no. 21-24 and 26-30 in the same series), of unusual format gatherings (e.g. vols. 1-4 of the score bound together and vols. 1-4 of each instrumental part bound together), or of related items (e.g. item bound with other named works by the same composer). Since the practice of binding multiple items/volumes together ceased in 1985, the 590 field is no longer employed in newly-created bibliographic records. In order to maintain consistency, field 590 continues to be used by the music cataloger for old "bound with" materials found in the stacks.

Additionally, format-specific inventory information (e.g. the existence of parts within a pocket of the score) has been and continues to be recorded within the "Volume/Part#" field of the Advance holdings record (e.g. (sco. 1 & pt. 1-3)). Also, the existence of multiple sound discs within one container (e.g. (3 discs)), of accompanying program notes within the container (e.g. (1 disc & 1 bklt.), and of accompanying material which differs in format from that of the primary item (e.g. (1 cassette)) is recorded in this field. It is intended that such "parenthetical inventory phrases" will be moved en masse to Public note subfields (i.e. 852 $z or 863 $z, as appropriate) in the future. Currently, field 955 is being used only to describe variant printing information (e.g. 1996 printing or Later printing distributed by H. Leonard).

The video cataloger does not currently use field 590 or 955. Publication information of earlier issues in other formats is given in field 500.

II. Policy A. Special Collections

Due to the importance of provenance and artifactual information in special collections, rare book catalogers will use field 500, with the holding library's USMARC code in $5, for most types of local and copy-specific information; the exception being the use of field 955 to note different printings of contemporary materials if judged not to be a new manifestation. An explicit statement of copy number in the note will be required. Although field 590 is the method recommended by RBMS, the use of field 500 is an acceptable alternative being consistent with current LC practice, and is the preferred choice because the note will be retained and displayed when NYUG is the master record in OCLC. This will allow for our local information to be displayed on all utilities--Advance, BobCat, OCLC, and RLIN. This is extremely important for those doing research and potentially helpful to other catalogers.

B. Videos

As stated above, the video cataloger does not currently use field 590 or 955 and will continue this practice.

C. Bobst Stacks and Reference, Music, Consortia

Music and other materials for the stacks and reference centers in Bobst, and most materials for consortium libraries, will continue to have copy-specific notes put in field 955, which will eventually be part of the holdings record. The recording of printing dates will continue since it is often helpful in determining the publication history of an item.

RELATOR TERMS/CODES

LC has no consistent policy across formats on relator terms vs. relator codes. When terms are used it is because they are deemed more intelligible to catalog users than codes. Rare book and video catalogers use terms. Video terms designate "function" rather than "agent" for the person carrying out a function. Music catalogers use codes based upon their perceived needs for "identification" and "file arrangement" per the last sentence of 21.0D. A very limited subset of the possible codes available is used, i.e. arr, cnd, lbt, lyr, nrt, and prf. LC will attempt to develop a consistent policy once its new ILS is implemented, probably opting for codes if the new system can convert the codes to terms for display.

Advance allows for headings in a multiple search result to sort and display by relator terms. Since NYU's use of relator terms or codes will vary between formats and materials, for reasons of consistency and ease of use it is desired that codes display to the public as terms, otherwise only staff are likely to be aware of the possibilities for searching.

Use of relator terms (entered in subfield e), rather than relator codes (entered in subfield 4), is recommended by the RBMS Bibliographic Standards Committee. NYU and the N-YHS will follow this recommendation for rare book cataloging.

Current Bobst music cataloging practice using relator codes is consistent with LC music cataloging policy and will continue.

The video cataloger does not use either terms or codes in original cataloging and removes both from member copy for consistency. This practice will continue.

N.B. Maps and La Pietra are using 852 $z, in anticipation of full implementation of MARC holdings.