534 original version note

[CECSpecialistI]

https://github.com/uwlib-cams/MARC2RDA/blob/main/Working%20Documents/5XX.csv

[lake44me]

Here are some notes I made before the meeting: and I added a bit based on our discussion

Questions:

• From the definition, can we assume there is another manifestation, of same expression that's described in 534?

• Is there enough in the 534 to generate an IRI, describe a manifestation, and relate that manifestation to this one?

• (Is that the best way to go if we can?)

[from discussion: Sophia has ideas about using $p terminology that matches RDA categories (original or official) of relationships to determine what property to use to relate our manifestation with the "original]

Terms in $p in examples (not controlled):

Originally issued, Originally published, Reproduction of, Reprint. Originally published Original: (no prefix) Original version $3vol. 2$pReproducción de la edición de: $cMadrid : Casa Editorial Hernando, 1924.

If a subfield 3 is present, materials specified, probably can't create a manifestation. Just make a note on manifestation?

Assumption: Title (and responsibility) are the same as for the manifestation being described in record. (??) If a $t or $a and $t don't match our manifestation, does this make the "original" a different expression?

Required tags are not always used - so these are "required if applicable/available".

$f Series statement of the original $k Key title of the original $n Note about the original $o Other resource identifier $x ISSN $z ISBN

RDA relations: Manifestation

(is) Facsimile of manifestation of http://rdaregistry.info/Elements/m/P30047 https://access.rdatoolkit.org/Content/Index?externalId=en-US_ala-a8671732-4aed-3b2c-9b6e-310e4617a9cf

Definition - https://access.rdatoolkit.org/Glossary?externalId=en-US_rdaregistry.info-termList-IllusContent-1002&highlight=facsimile .

My take - implicit in the definition is that a facsimile is made from one or more items of the original through some process, even if they are not identified and referenced. Whereas a Reproduction is broader and may encompass using the original's source composition (plates, typesetting, files, etc.), whether by the original publisher or another publisher.

If word facsimile appears in $p introductory phrase, use this property, otherwise use Reproduction of manifestation.

Broader: (is) Reproduction of manifestation of https://www.rdaregistry.info/Elements/m/#P30043 https://access.rdatoolkit.org/Content/Index?externalId=en-US_ala-f2183d7c-7677-3b6d-835f-615839185e15

Broader: Has equivalent manifestation https://www.rdaregistry.info/Elements/m/#P30024 https://access.rdatoolkit.org/Content/Index?externalId=en-US_ala-19152c97-642c-3cd0-82db-630329ad2940

---

There are two more narrower properties under Has equivalent manifestation that may or may not be appropriate to express 534 relationships:

Also issued as: http://rdaregistry.info/Elements/m/P30026 https://access.rdatoolkit.org/Content/Index?externalId=en-US_ala-b63395e4-bf33-38a4-bcb6-7f60c9698552 "A manifestation that embodies the same expression of a work in a different format"

Mirror site http://rdaregistry.info/Elements/m/P30028 https://access.rdatoolkit.org/Content/Index?externalId=en-US_ala-f20ae004-4439-34d2-b836-5b15e452779c

[lake44me]

We also discussed making these properties datatype properties, just supplying a title or authorized access point for the manifestation. The problem was where to put whatever additional information is contained in the field. On the other hand, what value would there be to minting IRIs for manifestations where we would have skimpy information to supply? Until there are opportunities for reconciliation with fuller manifestation descriptions from elsewhere...

[CECSpecialistI]

Thank you for adding these, Laura! We also had some thoughts from @szapoun during the meeting, I just posted the recording and I'm sure Benjamin took notes. Looking forward to discussing this field further next week.

[szapoun]

I would not mint any Manifestation based on 534.

I would either create a note on manifestation copying $p (e.g., Original version: ) and then the rest of 534 subfields using a specific order and punctuation.

An alternative would be to use the datatype property rdamd:P30024 "has equivalent manifestation"

If $p includes a text that reveals one of the rdamd:P30024 subproperties, then use the corresponding datatype property. Still the order of subfields and punctuation need to be specified.

[CECSpecialistI]

Examples worked out during meeting: 2023-10-18 534 ##$pOriginally published: $tNorth-west territory. $cToronto : John Lovell, 1859.

[ReprodIRI] rdam:P30024 "equivalent manifestation" [OrigIRI] [OrigIRI] rdf:type "type" rdac:C10007 [OrigIRI] rdam:P30139 "expression manifested" [ReprodExpressionIRI] [OrigIRI] rdam:P30134 "title of manifestation" "North-west territory" [OrigIRI] rdam:P30111 "publication statement" "Toronto : John Lovell, 1859."

245 14$aThe principles of language study / $cby Harold E. Palmer. 534 ##$pReprint. Originally published: $cNew York : World Book Company, 1921.

[ReprodIRI] rdam:P30043 "reproduction of manifestation" [OrigIRI] [OrigIRI] rdf:type "type" rdac:C10007 [OrigIRI] rdam:P30139 "expression manifested" [ReprodExpressionIRI] [OrigIRI] rdam:P30134 "title of manifestation" "The principles of language study" [OrigIRI] rdam:P30111 "publication statement" "New York : World Book Company, 1921."

OR

[ReprodIRI] rdam:P30043 "reproduction of manifestation" [OrigIRI] [OrigIRI] rdf:type "type" rdac:C10007 [OrigIRI] rdam:P30139 "expression manifested" [ReprodExpressionIRI] [OrigIRI] rdam:P30004 "identifier for manifestation" "OrigIRI" [OrigIRI] rdam:P30111 "publication statement" "New York : World Book Company, 1921."

[CECSpecialistI]

Group notes and mapping sketch in this document: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1RN5KzX4TuyUIUs-8TsBocbDd-nIINJ0WE9kqy6YLtKU/edit?usp=sharing

I filled out the spreadsheet according to group discussions of the past two weeks today. Ready for Theo to do transformation work. Great job everyone!

[cspayne]

534 decisions are unclear in the mapping sheet. Are we mapping to an original version note or minting an IRI?

[lake44me]

My 2 cents: I agree. Decisions are unclear. Looks like we had alternative mappings and didn't delete one (or two..?).

Looking at the example 534's in the LC documentation for 534, I am strongly leaning toward leaving these as P30137 "Has note on manifestation" and not minting IRIs.

Having to assume author/title are same as the reproduction, trying to parse out place, publisher, date from ISBD punctuation, having most elements of a core description lacking in many cases - lots of assumptions to create enough of a description to go with our minted IRI to be worth it, let alone to provide enough data to be able to reconcile against an actual manifestation descriptions of the "original". (With 533 it's likely a different story, since so many of the other MARC elements in the record have been cloned from the original's MARC description.)

We could revisit this in Phase 2, especially if we heard protests from consumers of our product.

If a 775 - Other Edition Entry or 787 Other Relationship was also present I might feel differently about minting an IRI, taking data from the 775, and using presence of 534 to indicate the relationship P30043 "Is reproduction of manifestation of". This may not be likely to happen, but subfield i "relationship information" which might be expected to have something useful like the example "Reproduction of (manifestation):" may not be present in records created before it was included in MARC. If it is present, then likely the 534 would not be added since it'd be redundant.

It'd be nice to use P30043 but just have the 534 stringified note as the object of it, but I don't think the rules allow that; either unstructured Title or structured Access point, or identifier... but not the other stuff. Since we don't have "note types", I guess P30137 will have to do. We could a P30335 Category of Manifestation = "reproduction" which as far as I know isn't in any VES... is it?

If we get to flagging conversions for human review at this pass, I'd say any with 533, 534 or other reproduction data patterns we might encounter would be candidates for a special flag.

Laura

---

From: Cypress @.> Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2024 3:27 PM To: uwlib-cams/MARC2RDA @.> Cc: Laura Akerman @.>; Assign @.> Subject: [External] Re: [uwlib-cams/MARC2RDA] 534 original version note (Issue #208)

534 Decisions are unclear. Are we mapping to an original version note or minting an IRI?

— Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHubhttps://github.com/uwlib-cams/MARC2RDA/issues/208#issuecomment-2125592870, or unsubscribehttps://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAKBM23KPGCDG74T2QZ67L3ZDTWTBAVCNFSM5IXMCQI2U5DIOJSWCZC7NNSXTN2JONZXKZKDN5WW2ZLOOQ5TEMJSGU2TSMRYG4YA. You are receiving this because you were assigned.

[CECSpecialistI]

We mapped this as a note on manifestation under some conditions (LDR/06-08=ab|ai|as) and as an equivalent manifestation if those conditions are not met. I think the Group notes and mapping sketch in this document make the spreadsheet and its conditions more clear, but I am the one who filled out the spreadsheet after the group met about this mapping so maybe it only makes sense in my brain. We did two different treatments of this field under two different sets of conditions on purpose, but if we need to revisit those we can do that.

[cspayne]

@CECSpecialistI Looking at it now, this makes sense. I was not familiar with what LDR/06-08 referred to. Does 06-08 mean 06 and 08, as in when 06 = a and 08 = b or i or s?

[CECSpecialistI]

Yes, that!

[CECSpecialistI]

Sorry the way we write LDR conditions is a little bit funny

[cspayne]

@CECSpecialistI For the "$x if exists is the same as 022 ## $a if exists" condition, should the transform be checking for multiple 022 fields with $a? Or will there only ever be one?

[tmqdeborah]

Do you mean LDR/06-07 (Bibliographic level) not 08) ? :-)

[lake44me]

Deborah's right, it must be LDR/06-07. LDR 08 is only for under archival control (yes/no)

Thanks for the decision document Crystal, but I'm confused about the $3 (I left this comment on it)

$3 Materials specified - indicates only a part of the original resource (aggregate!) is being described by the 534, e.g. "vol. 2".

Is presence of $3 a condition for generating an OriginalIRI and mapping the subfields of 534 to it (along with the serials and integrating resources and $x conditions)? And if so, why is the contents of $3 then not mapped to anything?

---

From: Deborah Fritz @.> Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2024 7:49 PM To: uwlib-cams/MARC2RDA @.> Cc: Laura Akerman @.>; Assign @.> Subject: [External] Re: [uwlib-cams/MARC2RDA] 534 original version note (Issue #208)

Do you mean LDR/06-07 (Bibliographic level) not 08) ? :-)

— Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHubhttps://github.com/uwlib-cams/MARC2RDA/issues/208#issuecomment-2128226831, or unsubscribehttps://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAKBM22ZWSJFZIYEERIA3T3ZDZ6AJAVCNFSM5IXMCQI2U5DIOJSWCZC7NNSXTN2JONZXKZKDN5WW2ZLOOQ5TEMJSHAZDENRYGMYQ. You are receiving this because you were assigned.Message ID: @.***>

[cspayne]

Transform on hold until decision is made on whether we are only mapping this as a note on manifestation or if there are certain circumstances where a manifestation is minted.

[tmqdeborah]

My vote would be to only map 534 as a note on manifestation. I do not think that sufficient information is provided in most of these notes to allow manifestations that are minted from them to be reliably matched to other descriptions of those manifestations.

I have put two files of records containing 534 fields at:

• 534_UW
• 534_LC.txt

[JianPLee]

Agreed with Deborah. It would also kind of odd to mint a manifestation for the original publication if a library does not have a holdings of. If the library does have a copy of the original publication, we would be making a duplicate.

[AdamSchiff]

Some strange uses of 534, such as:

130 0 $a Storia della bellezza. $l French. 245 10 $a Histoire de la beauté / $c sous la direction de Umberto Eco ; traduit de l'italien par Myriem Bouzaher ; traduit du latin et du grec par François Rosso. 260 $a Paris : $b Flammarion, $c ©2004. 300 $a 438 pages : $b illustrations (some color) ; $c 25 cm 337 $a unmediated $b n $2 rdamedia 534 $p Traduit de l'italien: $c Milan, Bompiani, 2004, $t Storia della bellezza. 655 7 $a History. $2 fast $0 (OCoLC)fst01411628 700 1 $a Eco, Umberto.

I've changed the 534 to a 500 note:

500 $a Translation of the Italian publication: Storia della bellezza. Milan : Bompiani, 2004.

Since this isn't a reproduction, 534 was inappropriate. It also shouldn't have had a note in French, when 040 $b = eng.

Adam

Adam L. Schiff Principal Cataloger University of Washington Libraries (206) 543-8409 @.***

---

From: Deborah Fritz @.> Sent: Wednesday, May 29, 2024 1:36 PM To: uwlib-cams/MARC2RDA @.> Cc: Adam L Schiff @.>; Assign @.> Subject: Re: [uwlib-cams/MARC2RDA] 534 original version note (Issue #208)

My vote would be to only map 534 as a note on manifestation. I do not think that sufficient information is provided in most of these notes to allow manifestations that are minted from them to be reliably matched to other descriptions of those manifestations.

I have put two files of records containing 534 fields at:

• 534_UWhttps://urldefense.com/v3/__https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1m5tP46eD2E00T5RBQ5qfOwzeDXvRANAn__;!!K-Hz7m0Vt54!gPhew7pqGRifeYzsCGUvOQf6WGK5NzPx9lxn3XPEBY7YkN_lh0AwHhrR_02y3gU4kWj5AYP-D0Rt6Ta-LLJA70A$
• 534_LC.txthttps://urldefense.com/v3/__https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1m5tP46eD2E00T5RBQ5qfOwzeDXvRANAn__;!!K-Hz7m0Vt54!gPhew7pqGRifeYzsCGUvOQf6WGK5NzPx9lxn3XPEBY7YkN_lh0AwHhrR_02y3gU4kWj5AYP-D0Rt6Ta-LLJA70A$

— Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHubhttps://urldefense.com/v3/__https://github.com/uwlib-cams/MARC2RDA/issues/208*issuecomment-2138220994__;Iw!!K-Hz7m0Vt54!gPhew7pqGRifeYzsCGUvOQf6WGK5NzPx9lxn3XPEBY7YkN_lh0AwHhrR_02y3gU4kWj5AYP-D0Rt6Ta-XDI0bbk$, or unsubscribehttps://urldefense.com/v3/__https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ADFBVBZ5MLALXL24P3LFYVLZEY34BAVCNFSM5IXMCQI2U5DIOJSWCZC7NNSXTN2JONZXKZKDN5WW2ZLOOQ5TEMJTHAZDEMBZHE2A__;!!K-Hz7m0Vt54!gPhew7pqGRifeYzsCGUvOQf6WGK5NzPx9lxn3XPEBY7YkN_lh0AwHhrR_02y3gU4kWj5AYP-D0Rt6Ta-dd0dIN4$. You are receiving this because you were assigned.Message ID: @.***>

[lake44me]

Now that I've agreed with Deborah, I'm starting to lean in the opposite direction. If there's enough data to identify the original (maybe, if $p contains the string "original" and place, publisher and date of publication can be parsed from $c based on ISBD punctuation), minting an IRI for it and breaking out those properties would give the advantage of potential searchability. Users looking for the original could be alerted to the availability of the reproduction. Discovery systems are going to have to change to properly deal with RDA relationships, particularly WEMI relationships.

However, we keep coming up with these flaky 534 examples and I wonder what percentage of the 534's (and 533's) are like that. Seems like catalogers who didn't find a field to express something in MARC at the time, just picked another tag and got creative...