Dear RDA experts
We are currently thinking about metadata which is termed «hybrid». By this we mean that one and the same dataset (in our case in MARC21) describes a resource which is available both in an analogue form and as a digitised version. An example would be a pencil drawing on paper which has been digitised and exists also as an image file in Jpg.
The nuts and bolts of the hybrid character come about in MARC 007 (two of these: one for the paper object, one for the online resource), 024 (identifier for the Jpg), 337 (occurs twice for 2 different resource types), 338 (occurs twice for 2 different resource types), and to a lesser extent 856 (links to an external platform where the Jpg can be viewed in high resolution; we even have a regional application rule for RDA 2.1 explicitely allowing this hybrid attribute in context of mass digitisation).
There are advantages of having all this information in one place. But we are concerned that this kind of hybrid metadata amounts to rule-breaking in terms of RDA: the integrity of the description is compromised, messed up by mixing attributes of different resource types.
-> Has anyone taken the plunge and tried this out? How do discovery systems behave? Are there huge problems downstream when you dismantle the coherence of metadata?
Thanks for any advice out there.
Tel +41 44 268 3221
Fax +41 44 268 32 92
email@example.com" target="_blank">Chat via Teams
For digitized holdings (that is, not for reprints issued electronically, but for reproductions we make of our holdings), we simply do not have the capacity to catalog everything again nor even to change the record that describes the original. As a result, we use holdings records in the local catalog (Alma) to describe the electronic reproduction, and, locally, only the holding record carries the information about the electronic resource. When reporting to OCLC, multiple bibliographic records are sent. The bibliographic record for the digital resource includes a subset of fields from the Alma holdings record that are converted to equivalent bibliographic fields, e.g., the 843 field is converted to the 533 and 539 fields.
Worldcat record for digital: https://www.worldcat.org/title/609119762?oclcNum=609119762
Worldcat record for original: https://www.worldcat.org/title/1172882?oclcNum=1172882
firstname.lastname@example.org"="">email@example.com" target="_blank">Chat via Teams
Collections Services Archivist for Metadata, Systems, and Standards
Harvard University Archives
voice: (617) 998-5238
fax: (617) 495-8011
Thank you for that valuable contribution. In our case (Prints and Drawings), those item-specific attributes and descriptions are indeed frequent and critical. Mixing these goes against the grain of entity-based cataloguing by blending attributes of two different manifestations in one description. A lot can be achieved with 776 or 856 fields without mixing the intrinsic description.
Stv. Leiterin Graphische Sammlung und Fotoarchiv
Tel. +41 44 268 31 00
Direkt: +41 44 268 31 69
225 N Michigan Ave, Suite 1300 | Chicago, IL | 60601 | USA
Request a New Community