843 reproduction note

[CECSpecialistI]

Mapped together; note on manifestation

[CECSpecialistI]

Hi @lake44me , Alice and I did a first pass on this last week as training, and just mapped it to "note on manifestation". I thought it might be helpful for you to be the "reviewer" on this one, since you did the 5xx reproduction note. Are you willing to review this mapping?

[CECSpecialistI]

Revised to "note on item". Moved from "Awaiting review" to "To do" since I think we need to consider how to deal with the holdings aspect of this note...do we need to mint an item for all 8xx fields as we have with $5? Thank you for the input @lake44me !

[lake44me]

Hi @CECSpecialistI and @cwarc Sorry for slow response. I think I addressed this in an email to Crystal, but I took a deeper look, and - it's confusing. The types of reproduction in the 843 examples - subfield a - indicate that a different physical medium from the "original" described in the record may be involved - though one can't tell without more of an example record.

Eyeballing, it looks like the subfields defined in 533 and 843 are identical, except 843 does not have the (new) $y Data provenance subfield that 533 has.

Under what circumstances would a library use 843 versus 533, I wonder?

If, say, a record describes the German Foreign Ministry Archives, 1867-1920 (originals) but has an 843:

843 | ##$3German Foreign Ministry Archives, 1867-1920$aMicrofilm.$bWhaddon Hall, Buckinghamshire, England :$cAmerican Historical Association.$e434 rolls.$f(Seized enemy records series).$7n########enkn#a<

Would items for the actual archives and also for the microfilm be attached to the same MARC record? Not according to the rules I know, but perhaps under other rules.

For RDA rules, it's clear to me from the Manifestation definition. that If an item has a different carrier type, it crosses the entity boundary and would be a different manifestation. Right?

I started getting into the details on this but I'm going to add them to the discussion on Reproductions instead. We should probably also include 534 and 775 in that discussion.

I think Adam mentioned tag 775; proper RDA cataloging would describe the reproduction in the body of the MARC record and use 775 to describe the original manifestation. 533, however, has been used a lot, perhaps for AACR2 cataloging, perhaps appearing in records coded RDA that have been "partially converted"... so we need to figure out how to map a record that has one.

I believe mapping to a Note on Manifestation is not adequate for either 533 o4 843. These are called note fields, but they are subfielded mini-descriptions of aspects of what should be a different RDA manifestation. Hopefully with enough detail so that we can combine it with data from other parts of the record to describe the reproduction manifestation, and can also mint a URI for the "original" manifestation, give adequate description of it, and relate them. (Crosses fingers)

In my opinion, providing mapping for the Holdings Format fields 841-845, 853-855, and 863-878 may get very detailed and perhaps we should put them out of scope for this first pass. But if you want to take this one, I think the same mapping would apply for it as for 533.

In my mind's eye, I was thinking about a situation where, say, a copy of some important out of print work was damaged and the library made a photocopy of another copy as a replacement and added an 843 tag to the holdings/copy record. But I don't think we can assume that's how 843 was used, and it's not clear there's a relation in RDA to describe that situation that doesn't involve creating another manifestation. Maybe http://www.rdaregistry.info/Elements/i/#P40163 but it's not clear to me what that would be used for, and like I said, we can't assume here.

Make sense?

[CECSpecialistI]

I think this should be, as you say, moved into the discussion about reproductions. I haven't had time to think about it yet (was on vacation last week) but don't want to forget about it.