I have a number of questions relating to records which one wants to 'link'
to records for other works. In practice, 'linking' depends very much on the
capabilities of your library system, and may consist of nothing more than an
author/title added entry, but nevertheless it would be good to get the
coding correct in case future library systems have better methods of linking
than matching text strings and an alphabetical index.
Question 1 relates to works which are concordances or indexes to, or
commentaries on, or reviews of other works (which the library may or may not
have in stock). How do you make reference to the 'other work' in your record
for the work-in-hand?
Most records I have seen for concordances, indexes, and commentaries seem to
use the title or author/title added entry method (700/71x/730/740), with a
500 note if the relationship is
otherwise not clear. But a significant number use the title or author/title
SUBJECT added entry method (6xx), which many cataloguers say is more logical
even when they themselves do not use it. One seldom sees records for book
reviews, but a recent discussion on another list seemed to suggest the 6xx
method. I have also seen the uniform title method, where the work to which
the work-in-hand refers is entered in 130/240, with subdivision "Indexes",
"Reviews", etc. - but this seems to be practicable only when the work being
indexed or reviewed does not itself have an author.
I have only recently become aware of tag 787 and I've never seen an example
of it in use, but since we use the other linking tags (760-785) extensively,
I'm wondering whether this would be better than any of the above, if only
because it has a subfield for the record number of the related work and
maybe future library systems will be able to link just on that. Where an
explanation of the nature of the relationship is needed, one would either
use tag 580, or, at least for local purposes and local system willing, one
could define a second indicator value in 787 which would produce a suitable
display label and make the note unnecessary.
Question 2 relates to records for journal articles and chapters in books.
My library does extensive analytical cataloguing and tag 773 is the field
used to 'link' the analytic record with its parent. But because we publish a
quarterly bibliography which is not limited to library holdings, we also
create MARC records for articles which the library does not hold. Until now,
we have been dubious about using 773 when there is nothing in our catalogue
to link the record to and have used a local field for the parent citation,
but I now feel that 773 probably would be correct. After all, we happily use
tags 780 and 785 for earlier and later titles of journals whether or not the
library actually holds those earlier and later titles. Does anyone else
catalogue not-in-stock items, and if so what do you do?
Question 3 refers to offprints and reprints of journal articles, which we
also catalogue extensively.
Up to now, we have entered a "From:" note in 500 (formerly 503), and
repeated the parent work data in structured form in 730 to provide an access
point. But again I see the possibilities of tag 787. Subfield w would allow
input of a linking record number (future library systems in mind) and the
second indicator value could be defined to produce a display label which
would render a 5xx note unnecessary. Is anyone else doing anything similar
with
787?
Question 4 relates to tag 774, which again I've become aware of only
recently.
This provides the 'down' link from parent to component part(s), while tag
773 provides the 'up' link from component part to parent.
Firstly, does anyone actually use 774 in this way? While I can see that it
would provide a great facility in the catalogue, and one which no library
system that I've seen offers in any other satisfactory way, the amount of
extra inputting would be horrendous, and certainly not feasible if you do
extensive analytical cataloguing.
Secondly, does anyone use it to catalogue collections, say of photographs or
ephemera, with no intention of creating separate records for each of the
component parts. If so, do you regard it as a legitimate use of 774 (which
is supposed to be a linking field, after all), or an illegitimate use but
one which works and saves time? And is there not something of an overlap
here with the 'enhanced' 505 contents tag?
Jeannette Lake
Head, Bibliographic Services
Wellcome Institute for the History of Medicine
183, Euston Road, London, NW1 2BE
Tel. 0171 611 8499
Email [log in to unmask]
.
