Additional tag for indicating atypical (obsolete, dubious) works

[lpugin]

We need a dedicated tag for marking some specific works that are listed in some work catalogues but where we should give an indication they should not be used as reference. Example:

• Graupner 1118/12 which is now 1118/12a and 1118/12b, where we need 1118/12 to be marked as "obsolete"
• Purcell "dubious" D* works
• Others?

Some ideas:

• 130 $g (Miscellaneous information), but not prominent enough IMO
• 075 (Entity type), but not really correct ($2 would be missing?)

Others?

[jenniferward]

A flexible interpretation of https://www.loc.gov/marc/authority/ad024.html might work. There is $z - Canceled/invalid standard number or code (R). Or would that interfere too much with other identifiers?

[ahankinson]

024 $z with a set of fixed options for $q (e.g., obsolete, dubious)?

[lpugin]

For me that would be saying the the identifier is obsolete, not the resource itself.

[lpugin]

Or are you saying that both 1118/12a and 1118/12b would have a 024 with 1118/20 ? That would work, but only for obsolete resources that have been replace by another one (or more)

[ahankinson]

Would you do that on the work itself, or on the catalogue entry? If it's on the work, then wouldn't you add it to the 690, since (I think?) that's where the number/page and catalogue reference are.

So add a second 690 and mark one as "obsolete" or "dubious"?

[lpugin]

Yes, I think I would keep a work record with a 690 for 1118/12 and mark it as obsolete. Then, in that record, pointing to 1118/12a and to 1118/12b with the link explaining that it has been replace by them.

[lpugin]

(We cannot assume that an obsolete work has been replaced by something else)

[xhero]

Did we decide a tag for this? I can leave it out for now

[lpugin]

Another possibility would be to have a database field and export it to 05 in the leader https://www.loc.gov/marc/authority/adleader.html. For Muscat and RISM Online, that would work well. Maybe less if we export the data, but we could event skip these or add a note field if that is eventually the case.

[lpugin]

We can use wf_audit

[xhero]

I need a couple things to complete this:

• How should it be called?
• The two values will be obsolete and dubious right?
• I also need a value for when it's neither, (except for "none" which cannot be used for weird rails reasons)

[lpugin]

• How should it be called?

Label? Category?

• The two values will be obsolete and dubious right?

Yes, for now.

• I also need a value for when it's neither, (except for "none" which cannot be used for weird rails reasons)

standard? blank? void? (I assume we are not going to see it. We can show the label only when it is given, execpt maybe in the drop down list?)

[xhero]

I did an initial implementation which you can find on -test. I went with "label" and the select has an empty value for "normal" records

[lpugin]

Looks good. You also need to add it to the show partial

[ahankinson]

Something more descriptive might be helpful. Authenticity? Attribution Certainty?

[xhero]

Form me both are good, @jenniferward do you have a preference?

[xhero]

NRM, OBS and DUB?

[lpugin]

Looks good. I would actually show nothing for normal records. I think this should work.

[BaMikusi]

Is "dubious" the right word in this context? Why it's essentially (and even etymologically) the same as "doubtful," I have the impression that it is the latter word that is more in use in work lists.

And would "spurious" not be a third category to consider here?

[lpugin]

I am equally fine with doubtful

Regarding spurious, no decision has been made. However, having thought about it more since we talked about it, it seems to be that these would be a perfect use-case for work nodes.

[xhero]

Should I change it to doubtful?

[BaMikusi]

In the meantime I have looked up a few work lists in the New Grove and found "doubtful" everywhere, so that's clearly the appropriate terminus technicus in this context.

[lpugin]

Thanks, it is much better to use the common terminology.

[BaMikusi]

As to the spurious stuff, I am not against any meaningful options (whereby I won't be at our meeting tomorrow and next week to discuss how a work node variant would exactly look like).

[jenniferward]

Would Work status as a field name make sense? Obsolete refers more to the record than to the content because the work is presumably still by Graupner, it's just the catalog number that has changed.

[jenniferward]

The field Application History Note, 688, might be useful as a user-friendly way to call attention to the status of the record, to complement the code in 008. https://www.loc.gov/marc/authority/ad688.html For example: Graupner 1118/12 was split into 1118/12a and 1118/12b.

[lpugin]

I would suggest Validity