Open CECSpecialistI opened 2 years ago
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?
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 !
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?
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.
Mapped together; note on manifestation