DATE: December 10, 2003
NAME: Making Subfields $e, $f, and $g Repeatable in Field 260 of the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format.
SOURCE: ACRL Rare Books and Manuscripts Section, Bibliographic Standards Committee
SUMMARY: Recording multiple places, names, and dates of manufacture in field 260 is sometimes needed in rare book cataloging. Since subfields $e (Place of manufacture), $f (Manufacturer) and $g (Date of manufacture) are currently not repeatable in field 260, catalogers must either decide to record only one set of manufacture information or give the information in a note. This paper proposes making these subfields repeatable in field 260.
KEYWORDS: Field 260 (BD); Place of manufacture (BD); Manufacturer (BD); Date of manufacture (BD)
12/10/03 - Made available to the MARC 21 community for discussion.
01/10/04 - Results of the MARC Advisory Committee discussion - Approved
03/18/04 - Results of LC/NLC/BL review - Approved.
Use of the subfields $e, $f, and $g in field 260 for recording information about manufacture is unusual for modern books. The AACR2 rule calls for recording manufacture information when there is no publication information available (which is unusual) or, optionally, in addition to the publication information. Typically, this option is not exercised for general cataloging.
The Descriptive Cataloging of Rare Books (DCRB), which contains the rules most often applied to rare books in U.S. libraries, is being revised. One of the factors that has motivated this revision is a desire expressed by many catalogers of rare materials to apply these more detailed and rigorous rules to books of the machine-press period (primarily the 19th century). In this period, the functions of printers and others responsible for manufacture has become distinct from the functions of publishers and booksellers and statements, often quite complex, are found on books.
The revised DCRB will call for the transcription of manufacture information in the publication, distribution, etc., area (field 260) and the inclusion of multiple manufacturers when applicable. Even under the current rules, it would be legitimate to record multiple places, names, and dates of manufacture. Since the subfields are not currently repeatable, catalogers must either decide to record only one set of manufacture information or give the information in a note. It seems preferable that the subfields be made repeatable.
Subfields $e (Place of manufacture), $f (Manufacturer) and $g (Date of manufacture) were added to what was then the music format through Proposal 87 discussed in December 1976. They first appeared in the 1980 version of the MARC Formats for Bibliographic Data. At the time, it seemed inconceivable that particular items could have more than one manufacturer, place of manufacture, or date of manufacture. The revision of the DCRB, however, does recognize that the inclusion of multiple manufacturers is possible.
The current 260 field definition is the following:
260 - PUBLICATION, DISTRIBUTION, ETC. (IMPRINT) (R)
First - Sequence of publishing statements
# - Not applicable/No information provided/Earliest available publisher
2 - Intervening publisher
3 - Current/latest publisher
Second - Undefined
# - Undefined
$a - Place of publication, distribution, etc. (R)
$b - Name of publisher, distributor, etc. (R)
$c - Date of publication, distribution, etc. (R)
$e - Place of manufacture (NR)
$f - Manufacturer (NR)
$g - Date of manufacture (NR)
$3 - Materials specified (NR)
$6 - Linkage (NR)
$8 - Field link and sequence number (R)
The following are typical examples of repeating subfields $e, $f, and $g to record multiple place, names and dates of manufacture:
|260||## $aNew York :$bSheldon & Company ;$aBoston :$bGould & Lincoln,$c[1860?] $e([New York] :$fElectrotyped by Smith & McDougall ... ;$fPrinted by C.A. Alvord ...)|
|260||## $aNew York :$bMason Brothers ;$aBoston :$bMason & Hamlin ;$aPhiladelphia : $bJ.B. Lippincott & Co. ;$aCincinnati :$bSargent, Wilson & Hinkle,$c1866$e(Hartford, Conn. :$fStereotyped by Richard H. Hobbs ;$eNew York :$fPrinted by C.A. Alvord ...)|
Catalogers of 19th century materials would benefit most from this change by being able to provide more detailed and precise description of machine-press books. It would allow them to apply the revised DCRB rules which makes it mandatory to repeat subfields $e (Place of manufacture), $f (Manufacturer) and $g (Date of manufacture) when appropriate.
There would be little impact on retrospective records if subfields $e (Place of manufacture), $f (Manufacturer) and $g (Date of manufacture) were made repeatable. In fact, it is estimated that less than 0.1% of general cataloging records and a measurable minority of 19th century machine-press books cataloging would be affected by this change. Because of these figures, retrospective application would more than likely be determined record by record and done manually, probably with the item in hand. Large scale retrospective application is unlikely.
In field 260 (Publication, Distribution, Etc. (Imprint)) of the MARC 21 bibliographic format:
Make the following subfields repeatable: