DATE: December 2, 1994
REVISED: May 5, 1995 (slight revision)

December 1, 1995

NAME: Linking Code for Reproduction Information in the USMARC Bibliographic Format


SUMMARY: A code is proposed for use in marking the fields pertaining to a reproduction that are added to a record for an original when creating the record for the reproduction. The technique and code use the subfield $8 (Field link and sequence number) to identify the added fields.

RELATED: 94-15 (June 1994); DP67 (June 1993)

KEYWORDS: Field linking; Linking fields; Reproductions; Subfield $8 (Field link and sequence number; Value r (reproduction); Versions


12/2/94 - Forwarded to USMARC Advisory Group for discussion at the February 1995 MARBI meeting.

2/6/95 - Results of USMARC Advisory Group discussion - Discussion indicated that marking reproduction-related fields was needed and the $8 is the appropriate mechanism. $8 should probably be required for all reproduction fields (except 007), although a question remains about field 533, especially when it is the only reproduction field besides 007. Additional discussion needed on use of existing subfields in the field 533. Continue discussion at June 1995 meeting.

5/5/95 - Slightly revised version forwarded to the USMARC Advisory Group for discussion at the June 1995 MARBI meeting.

6/24/95 - Results of USMARC Advisory Group discussion - Discussion indicated that the proposed change as specified is acceptable but the following needs to be added or adjusted:

12/1/94 - Forwarded to USMARC Advisory Group for discussion at the January 1996 MARBI meeting.

1/20/96 - Results of USMARC Advisory Group discussion - Approved with the following specifications:

2/15/96 - Results of final LC review - Agreed with MARBI decision.

PROPOSAL NO. 95-6: Linking Code for Reproduction Information


Discussion Paper 67 (April 1993) suggested continuing the full
record approach to records for reproductions, in the light of the
lack of success in implementing the Holdings format as the
solution.  A forum held in 1989 had recommended the general
implementation and use of the Holdings format as an efficient
method of communicating records for reproductions, especially
records for preservation microforms.  In the succeeding years the
community, led by LC, had largely continued to create instead full
records for reproductions by cloning the records for the originals
and adding fields that provide information about the reproduction. 
Recently there has also been a trend toward simply adding the
information about the reproduction to the record for the original,
without cloning the record first. 

CC:DA studied the problem of descriptions of reproductions for
several years and concluded that a variety of data elements might
be needed to bring out additional information concerning only the
reproduction.  The CC:DA paper also defines situations where an
item is to be treated as a reproduction.  The completion of the
CC:DA document enabled MARBI to consider again the formatting of
records for reproductions.

At the MARBI meeting in 1993 when DP 67 was discussed, some system
representatives who wanted to be able to use Holdings records or
some other type of reduced records for reproductions in their
internal systems requested that information be included in the
communications record to mark the fields that were added to the
original when it was cloned and/or augmented for the reproduction. 
Thus the communications formatted record for a reproduction could
continue to be a full record but systems that did not want to hold
the record in that manner could recognize and strip the duplicative
fields and then reattach them if further communication of the
record were needed.  



Standardization of the treatment of reproductions has had a
difficult recent history in bibliographic control and record
creation.  This is partly because the problem is usually treated
very broadly, yet the characteristics of reproductions vary
considerably in different media.  There are additional difficulties
of identifying originals when productions are simultaneous.  The
potential and versatility of the computer is making the problem
even more complex.  It is also not clear how important some
reproduction information is to users.  And of course users are not
standard and have many different needs.  

In trying to deal with the whole environment we have failed to
standardize, except informally, one very large and important group
of reproductions, microforms.  This media is mature and stable
enough for its characteristics to be understood, and it is and will
continue to be a very important tool for preservation of material. 
While we are digitizing a great deal of material for current use,
we are not yet sure of the life of digital material, whereas, there
is scientific information concerning the preservation qualities of
microforms.  In presenting the following technique, there is a
focus on microform reproductions.  The technique may be useful for
other forms of reproductions, but they should perhaps be evaluated
separately in order to assure adequate treatment of the nuances of
the many types of media that have reproduction or multiproduction
characteristics.  One step in this direction for computer formats
is DP92 on the general treatment of computer media in the MARC
formats.  A focus on microforms does not exclude use of the
technique for other forms of reproductions.


Three general models for internal system records need to be
possible from the USMARC communications record:  
   A one record for original and one for each microform
     reproduction containing the whole of the record for the
     original plus additional fields needed for the reproduction; 
   B one record for original and microform reproductions; 
   C one record for the original and one reduced record for each
     reproduction containing only the fields pertaining to the
Models B and C are especially attractive 1) for local systems,
where multiple holdings institutions do not need to attach holdings
information to the correct version of an item, 2) for monographs
where complex detailed holdings are not needed, and 3) for systems
not engaged in the supply of individual records to users for
specific items that the users own.  Models B and C avoid the
multiplicity of records for the same work and accompanying extra
indexing.  Model A is attractive in large multiuser systems where
holdings need to be associated with the correct reproduction and
where records are supplied to customers individually.  It is also
best for the exchange environment where a partial record exchanged
may be unintelligible to the receiver.

For this discussion of microform reproductions, Model A is the
basic model for the exchange record with a goal of making possible
storage of the data in local systems using Models B and C.

The essential elements for creation of records conforming to Model
A as it is now used informally by many systems and as indicated in
the MARC formats are the following for microform reproductions.

  -  Copy the record for the original.
  -  Add a microform 007 pertaining to the microform.
  -  Change the 008/23 to indicate the form of microform being
  -  Add a $h (Medium) subfield to the 245 field.
  -  Add 533 giving the imprint, collation, series and any note
     information pertaining to the reproduction.
  -  Add 776 pointing to the record for the original.
  -  Add any added entries needed to describe the reproduction.

The primary problem for local systems when trying to reduce the
records for Model C or change them to combined records for Model B
is the last item above, identification of the fields other than the
007 and 533 that have been added to the record for the original.

Marker technique

Proposal 94-15 established a technique for field to field linking. 
The pertinent parts of the general structure for the field linking
technique is to add a subfield $8 (Field link and sequence number)
to each field to be linked with the following content:


The link-number is the same for all the fields that are to be
linked, and it can be any number.  The field-link-type is a code
indicating the reason the fields are linked.  The link-number is
mandatory and the field-link-type is mandatory except when the
subfield is used to link enumeration and chronology subfields in
holdings data.  No field-link-type codes for use with the linking
technique were approved with 94-15 since the situations for field
to field linking are varied and each is to be considered
separately.  (The link-number can optionally be followed by
".sequence-number", if sequencing is needed, but since it is not in
this use of the technique, it has been omitted from the

The marker needed to identify fields pertaining to the reproduction
may be viewed as "a link among the fields that were added to the
record for the original and that pertain to the reproduction".  For
each field not in the original, subfield $8 with the above
information would be added.  Link-number will be the same for all
fields relating to a particular reproduction.  A code for the
field-link-type (r=reproduction) would identify the reason for the
linkage.  See example in Appendix.  

Fields to be used

Standardization of fields to be used for the reproduction data
added is important.  The USMARC format contains already field 533
(Reproduction Note) which has been used extensively for records
for, especially, microform reproductions.  Field 533 accommodates
a number of the data elements most likely to be needed, especially
for recording a microform reproduction:  type of reproduction;
imprint information (agency, place and date of reproduction);
physical description; series statement; serial dates; notes; and 7
fixed field (008) data elements.  These subfields were established
because they would cover most of the needs for additional data on
the reproduction.  For any other data elements, the regular fields
of the format with subfield $8 would be used.  Format data elements
that duplicate the subfields in field 533 (fields 260, 300, 490,
and 500) would not be used for reproduction data.  This method
would provide consistency with the large number of existing records
for reproductions.

Field 533 does not need to contain subfield $8, because it is
redundant since the field tag identifies it as a field pertaining
to the reproduction.  


The 007 field for a microform (or for another form of material)
cannot be marked with a $8 subfield.  It can be identified as
pertaining to the reproduction by its tag (007) and type, 007/00 =
h (microform).


Presently only one data element in the 008 field is changed to
reflect the characteristics of certain microform and print-related
reproduction types:  008/23 (Form of item)(BK, SE, MU, MX).  008/23
values are micro and macro format oriented: microfilm, microfiche,
microopaque, large print, braille, regular print reproduction. 
They would only be coded for the reproduction in the case of those
types of reproductions. 

Order of numeric subfields

The MARC formats have defined 7 numeric subfields:  $2 for source
or system, $3 for materials specified, $4 for relator code, $5 for
institution and copy information, $6 for alternate graphic link, $7
for control information, and $8 for other link.  By example in the
formats $3, $6, $7, $8 are placed at the beginning of fields, and
$2, $4, and $5 are placed at the end of fields (with a few
exceptions for $3 and $7).  There are statements relating to
placement included under Bibliographic field 880, $6 always first;
under Bibliographic field 852, $3 always first; and under Holdings
fields 8XX fields, $8 always first.  It is only recently that the
$6 and $8 have been defined in more instances for the same fields,
and they highlight this conflict in instruction.  The following
practice for the placement of the numeric subfields is recommended:
     Numeric subfields $3, $6, $7, and $8 are to precede all other
     subfields in a field and numeric subfields $2, $4, and $5 are
     to follow all other subfields.  When multiple numeric
     subfields are needed before the other subfields, they are
     arranged in ascending numeric order, and the same order
     applies to multiple numeric subfields at the end of a field. 

Use of $h in 245 field

Currently the cataloging rules used by many institutions calls for
recording the form of an item in subfield $h (Medium) of the 245
(Title Statement).  The 245 field is therefore not exactly like it
appears in the record for the original.  The recommendation is not
to mark this field with an $8 subfield, as generally the addition
of the $h can be expected.


   --Define a field-link-type code for use in subfield $8 (Field
link and sequence number) in the Bibliographic format:

          r = reproduction 

     The code, used in a record for a reproduction, identifies
     fields linked because they contain information concerning only
     the reproduction where all other descriptive data pertains to
     the original (with the exception of the 007, 008/23, 245, and
     533 noted above).

   --Fields used for data:
     Use field 533 for all data describing the reproduction that is
          defined for that field.
     Use 007 as applicable.  Code 008/23 for the reproduction.
     Add $h (Media) to the title field 245.
     If multiple numeric subfields occur in the record, their order
          will be $3, $6. $7, $8, all occurring before the data in
          the field, and $2, $4, $5, placed after the data in the
     Use field 776 (Additional Physical Form Entry) to link to the
          record for the original, with subfield $8 added.
     Use other fields that relate only to the reproduction as
          needed with subfield $8 in each, but not fields 260, 300,
          490, or 500 which duplicate those found in field 533.



Serial reproduced on microfilm

     Record for the original:

     001  sf89-91551
     008/23    #  (None of the following)
     245  04$aThe New-York mirror, and ladies' literary gazette
     246  10$aNew York mirror, and ladies' literary gazette
     260  ##$aNew York :$bG.P. Morris,$c1823-1830.
     300  ##$a7 v.
     310  ##$aWeekly
     362  0#$aVol. 1, no. 1 (Aug. 2, 1823)-v. 7, no. 52 (July 3,
     780  05$tCritic$w(DLC)sf89091554
     785  00$tNew-York mirror$w(DLC)sf89091552

     Record for the microfilm:

     001  sf89-91553
     007  <microform>
     008/23    a  (Microfilm)
     245  04$aThe New-York mirror, and ladies' literary
     246  10$aNew York mirror, and ladies' literary gazette
     260  ##$aNew York :$bG.P. Morris,$c1823-1830.
     300  ##$a7 v.
     310  ##$aWeekly
     362  0#$aVol. 1, no. 1 (Aug. 2, 1823)-v. 7, no. 52 (July 3,
     533  ##$aMicrofilm.$bAnn Arbor, Mich. :#cUniversity
          Microfilms,#d1950.$e3 microfilm reels ; 35
          mm.$f(American periodical series, 1800-1850 : 164-165,
     776  1#$84/r$tNew-York mirror, and ladies' literary
     780  05$tCritic$w(DLC)sf89091554
     785  00$tNew-York mirror$w(DLC)sf89091552
     830  #0$84/r$aAmerican periodical series, 1800-1850 ;$v164-
          165, 785.

Map reproduced on microfilm

     Record for the original:

     001  49-254
     007  <map>
     008/23    #  (None of the following)
     245  10$a[Poland].
     255  ##$aScale 1:100,000.
     260  ##$aWarszawa :$bWojskowy Instytut Geograficsny,$c1922-
     300  ##$aca. 1,000 maps :$bcol. ;$c28 x 37 cm.
     500  ##$aIncludes multiple editions of some sheets.

     Record for the microform:

     007  <microform>
     007  <map>
     008/23    a  (Microfilm)
     245  10$a[Poland]$h[microform].
     255  ##$aScale 1:100,000.
     260  ##$aWarszawa :$bWojskowy Instytut Geograficsny,$c1922-
     300  ##$aca. 1,000 maps :$bcol. ;$c28 x 37 cm.
     500  ##$aIncludes multiple editions of some sheets.
     533  ##$aMicrofiche.$b[Santa Cruz, Calif. :$cWestern
          Association of Map Libraries,$d1988]$e1.253
          microfiches$nColor maps reproduced in black and white.
     776  1#$81/r$tPoland$w(DLC)49-254

Go to:

Library of Congress
Library of Congress Help Desk (09/03/98)