Newsgroups: bit.listserv.notis-l
Date:         Wed, 22 Jul 1992 10:01:58 EDT
From:         "Wm. H. Shrout, III" <KLIWHS@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
Subject:      *LONG*Donors on NOTIS
Comments: To: autocat@uvmvm.BITNET, notis-l@tcsvm.BITNET

Well!  Response has been so heavy that I just decided to post the entire
file on AUTOCAT and NOTIS-L!  Sorry about the length--  I think it isn't
good INTERNET etiquette to post any file over 100 lines on a list, thus
the "*LONG*" notation on the subject line.

To summarize, the following are some of the responses which I received
in reply to our query about handling donor names in our OPAC here at the
University of Kentucky.  Let me take this opportunity to thank everyone
that responded-- you all were very helpful!

[NB:  We've decided to utilize a 590 field for donor names here
      at U of Ky.]

[My apologies to multiple recipients.]

*****************************************************************************

Date: Tue, 14 Jul 92 12:14:44 EST
From: Gary Charbonneau 812-855-7941 <CHARBONN@ucs.indiana.edu>
X-To: WINS%"kliwhs@ukcc.uky.edu"
Subject: RE: Donors on NOTIS
To: kliwhs@ukcc.uky.edu

At Indiana University, our concern is slightly different.  We have one unit
which wishes to keep its donor information confidential, both from the
general public and from other technical services units.  However, they
want to store the info in bibliographic records so that they can use KWB
to generate on-demand lists of works donated by specific individuals.

We're still hashing this out.  However, the following has been proposed:

   (1) A 599 field will be defined for confidential information.  To
keep it out of OPAC, the people who handle OPAC design will agree never
to allow public display of the 599 field.

   (2) Because the unit in question has its own institution group,
only they will be allowed to use the CICS transactions that allow
staff mode access to their records.  This is controlled outside of
NOTIS, through a mainframe security package.

- Gary Charbonneau
  LIB2
  Indiana University
  charbonn@ucs.indiana.edu
  812-855-7941

Date: Tue, 14 Jul 1992 14:28 EDT
From: AKEBABIAN@COLGATEU.BITNET
Subject: donors or honorees
To: kliwhs@ukcc.bitnet
Message-id: <01GMDEJ4K78G94FHRO@COLGATEU.BITNET>
X-Envelope-to: kliwhs@ukcc.bitnet
X-VMS-To: IN%"kliwhs@ukcc.bitnet"

I prefer to keep this kind of message off the bibliographic record, and on the
item record instead.  It is entirely feasible that while one copy was donated
by or in honor of someone, another copy in the collection is not.  (For
example, at Colgate we have donated copies of first editions in dust jackets
and/or signed by the author in special collections, while a well-used copy of
the same bibliographic entity is in the circulating collection.)  I also
question the value of the donor/honoree information to anyone but the donor/
honoree and/or his/her family.

We are an Innovative Interfaces site, and can do a search on notes in item
records for a particular donor's name if it is necessary.  I don't know if
Notis would be capable of such a boolean search for specific text strings,
or if your database is too large to make such a search efficient.  However,
when you consider the inefficiency of having to sort out authority control
for an added entry, or identification of particular donors with particular
pieces, efficiency doesn't seem to be the issue!

Good luck.

Ann Kebabian, Head of Cataloging
Colgate University, Hamilton, NY 13346
(315) 824-7309
akebabian@colgateu (bitnet preferred) or akebabian@colgate.edu


Date:      Tue, 14 Jul 1992 15:14:23 EDT
From:      Donna Capelle Cook <DCCOOK@SUVM>
To:        kliwhs@ukcc.uky.edu

Syracuse University Library has just settled on this question.
We decided to put this 590 note on our records:  Gift of so and so.
or One copy gift of so and so.  The note is also transferred to
the copy holding note field in case the bibliographic record
should get overlayed.  The statement can then be reentered into
the bibliographic record. The donor's name is then searchable
retrieveable with a 590 keyword search: ex. k=bannister.590.

We have always plated gift books for the main library in the past.
Only Special Collections added the donor's name to the bibliographic
record as a 700 but this was only for card production.  The 700s were
stripped from the record for the online catalog.  We were instructed
to delete these 700s for just the reason you cited, too many hits
on an author search when the donor was an author also.  With the
promise of a searchable 590 field, special collections closed its
public card catalog.

While the search feature is promised, it hasn't materialized yet.
We are doing the above while waiting for the system people to implement
it.

Hope I've helped.  Let me know if you need more info.

Donna Capelle Cook
Gifts Librarian
Syracuse University Library
dccook@suvm
315/443-9756


Date: Tue, 14 Jul 1992 15:50 CDT
From: PALSMML@VAX1.Mankato.MSUS.EDU
Subject: Donor names in catalog record
To: kliwhs@ukcc.uky.edu
Message-id: <01GMDHD8RSCW001HFF@VAX1.Mankato.MSUS.EDU>
X-Envelope-to: kliwhs@ukcc.uky.edu
X-VMS-To: IN%"kliwhs@ukcc.uky.edu"

If you can wait for format integration (?!), the field 541 (immediate
source of acquisition) will be available, presumably, for you to use
for donor data. The field is presently validated for archival & manu-
scripts control, visual materials, scores, and sound recordings.

The "honoree" data is another matter, one on which I have no opinion.

Marion Mattersw
Minnesota Legislative Reference Library
612/297-8891


Date:         Tue, 14 Jul 92 20:27:57 EST
From:         Kathryn Wright <LIBKAT@indst.indstate.edu>
Subject:      Re: DONORS on NOTIS
To:           "Wm. H. Shrout, III" <KLIWHS@UKCC.UKY.EDU>

Hi.

Oh, my, the problems of conversing on questions of interest to more than
one electronic discussion group!

The use of relator terms and relator codes and of the treatment of donor
information in the online environment have been discussed in the past on
NOTRBCAT in connection with RBSC special files.  I would like to invite you
to bring the question before NOTRBCAT@INDYCMS if the response from AUTOCAT
isn't sufficient.  (Although many NOTRBCAT members *are* members of AUTOCAT,
we have some curators and RBSC dept. heads as well, and even EXLIBRIS could
be fertile ground for this question.)

Basically, the inference from our past discussions is that the entire area
of putting special files online is not being pursued hotly by the field in
general and that where they are being implemented, the local automated
systems are causing some nonstandard adaptations to be adopted.  As for
making donor information public, I believe that there was a slight preference
for doing that over keeping it confidential.  However, we now have more
members and a different mix, and the conversation could now develop differ-
ently.  The handling of RBSC special files electronically is something that
everyone is going to have to address sooner or later, I imagine, and the
more discussion we get, the better.

Kathryn Wright
Indiana State University
LIBKAT@INDST (Bitnet) or LIBKAT@INDST.INDSTATE.EDU (Internet)


Date:         Wed, 15 Jul 92 08:11:55 CDT
From:         SMUIR@UA1VM
Subject:      Donors
To:           "W. H. Shrout" <kliwhs@ukcc>

We use the 590 field for donor information.  We put in a message  along the
lines of "Wade Hall Collection of Southern History".  The 590 fields disply
in the long view of records as a NOTES field.  It is also searchable
by KWB.

********************************
*  SCOTT P. MUIR               *
*  THE UNIVERSITY OF ALABAMA   *
*  SMUIR@UA1VM                 *
*  SMUIR@UA1VM.UA.EDU          *
*  (205) 348-2299              *
********************************


Date:         Wed, 15 Jul 92 12:32:21 CDT
From:         NOTEBS@LSUVM
Subject:      Donor/Honoree query
To:           William Shrout <kliwhs@ukcc>
X-Acknowledge-To: <NOTEBS@LSUVM>

In response to your query about how other libraries are dealing with donor
and honoree information in bib records, and how we are addressing the
issues of retrieval and authority control:

At LSU, we are currently avoiding the use of 700 fields and thus avoiding
(ducking) authority issues.  Retrieval is handled through keyword searching
of notes fields, for which standard wording is developed.   The on-line catalog
itself acts as an authority file: once wording is established, the cataloger
can consult the OPAC if he/she is in doubt about the proper form to use.

We do *not* enter donor information in the bib record unless the donor demands
it.  Normally, donor information is private, and it is entered in o/p/r record
in a standard format, which allows us to generate reports that give us
listings of everything given by individual donors.  (E.g.: Vendor: gift; Doe,
Jane Q., 1934 Charity Street, Beneficent, OH 30657)

Typically our bib record notes read, for example:

Library's copy is from the Richard T. Ely Collection, with his autograph and
bookplate.

Library's copy is from the Garland-Bullard Memorial Collection.

... and so forth.   These can be retrieved by searching

k ely collection.500.     (I don't know why we use 500 instead of 590; it's
                            a local decision that was made before my time.)
for example.

Obviously, this way of doing things is not "transparent" to users, but on the
plus side, neither is it confusing.  (No one looking for books by Ely will
pull books from his collection by doing an author search.)

As you can see from the examples I've cited, we're really more concerned with
provenance in the bib record that donor/honoree.  We use the same routine
for recording other copy-specific information.

May I ask a favor? I don't subscribe to the list on which you originally posted
your query.  I would therefore be grateful if you would send me your summary
of responses when you've compiled it.

Thanks,

Elaine Smyth
Rare Book Collections
NOTEBS@LSUVM.BITNET
(504) 3886547


Date:         Wed, 15 Jul 92 13:18:13 CST
From:         Sherilyn Bird <VB7R0011@SMUVM1>
Organization: Southern Methodist University
Subject:      Donor names
To:           kliwhs@ukcc

Our response to requests to make the donor's name visible in the opac
has been to create a 590 note:
        590  Gift: [donor's name]
                 or
        590  Provenance: Gift of [donor's name]
We expect to be able to retrieve these notes using a keywork search
if the donor desires to see all of the records with his name on them.
I hope this is helpful to you.
Sherilyn Bird                    VOICE: 214 692-2315
Head Catalog Dept.               BITNET: vb7r0011@SMUVM1
Central University Libraries     INTERNET: vb7r0011@vm.cis.smu.edu
Southern Methodist University
Dallas, Texas


Date:         Wed, 15 Jul 92 15:12:58 EDT
From:         Janey Chao <JHCBB@CUNYVM>
Subject:      Accessibility of donor's name on OPAC
To:           William Shrout <kliwhs@ukcc>

Mr. Shrout:
     I am in the process of cataloging a donated collection from
Dr. Martinez, he was the head of Black and Hispanic Studies here
in Baruch.  He died of AIDS recently.  In memory of his contributions
to the library community, we decided to put his name on OPAC.  My way
of handling this is to type the following two entries in the local OPAC
system:
       500    "Martinez Collection."
       740 01 Martinez collection.

      The entry is retrievable only by title, instead of by name.  By
 using this way, you can avoid any name confusions in the system.

 Janey Chao, Cataloger/Romance languages bibliographer
 Baruch College, City University of New York

******************************************************************************
Compiled by--

<<.>>--------------------------->>.<<---------------------------<<.>>
  :       Wm. Shrout, Technician, On-Line Cataloging Unit         :
  :           M.I.King Library - University of Kentucky           :
  :                      KLIWHS@UKCC.UKY.EDU                      :
<<.>>--------------------------->>.<<---------------------------<<.>>
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU