[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Field for grant number



In a message dated 6/21/00 4:41:00 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
CTexley@COMPUSERVE.COM writes:

<<
 Hi -

 My take on it is that 583 (Action Note)  subfield f (Authorization) would
 be a good  place,  since it's not the collection itself but only the
 finding aid attached to the granting agency & number.  If the collection or
 materials described were related to a grant, then 536 would be the place.
 The Library of Congress  description of 583 is "A copy-specific field that
 contains information about processing, reference, and preservation actions.
 For those using the field to record preservation activities, a list of
 Standard Terminology for USMARC Field 583 is available."   Arrangement is
 definitely an action, and the granting agency sponsored it, so it looks
 like an appropriate choice for the grant info./number.
  >>


I like Carolyn's solution better than my earlier suggestion of 536, and I
would take a look at the records in the Georgia Archives as I have seen a
number of records with GHRAB notes, but I've not looked at the MARC coding on
the records so I'm not sure how they do the coding.  I've only seen them in
public (okay, when I get back to the office tomorrow I'll look at them in
OCLC...).  Since some of these are around, and they are Georgia stuff, you
may want to be consistent with the coding used there, to be consistent within
your state.


One caveat; if you are using the 583 strictly for preservation and have been
advised to stick to the Standard Terminology to generate a database for later
use (in my case future planning for preservation grants), then you would want
to consider another field for the information, since it may have
repercussions on your preservation database.  536 subfield a could be phrased
to indicate its application to arrangement and finding aid only--there is no
subfield 3 option that would make it a tidy way of indicating finding aid
only---and it could be awkward.  One could create a 59x which is also not
ideal.    It may be that 583 could be used with non-preservation terminology
without having an effect on a planned preservation database, but I was not
able to get straight answers from vendors as to the effect of non-standard
terminology (esp. subfield a) on this plan.  I tried several times to make
this a required response on the RFP for library management system vendors
when we did an RFP a few months ago, but it never made it into the RFP, so I
never got answers.

More than anyone wanted to know, I'm sure, but 583 is ideal, unless you're
using 583 as a dedicated preservation field and you can't get answers from
your lib mgt system folks.

F Holly Hodges
in Chattanooga

A posting from the Archives & Archivists LISTSERV List!

To subscribe or unsubscribe, send e-mail to listserv@listserv.muohio.edu
      In body of message:  SUB ARCHIVES firstname lastname
                    *or*:  UNSUB ARCHIVES
To post a message, send e-mail to archives@listserv.muohio.edu

Or to do *anything* (and enjoy doing it!), use the web interface at
     http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/archives.html

Problems?  Send e-mail to Robert F Schmidt <rschmidt@lib.muohio.edu>