Yale University Library Catalog Department
Local Headings Task Group Report



Introduction  Collection tracings  Imprint tracings   Subject tracing of non-subject names  Chronology tracings  Non-standard subject headings  Form/genre headings  Hybrid headings

Imprint tracings

At present, the Rare Book Team and the British Art Center use a variety of methods for providing imprint tracings, depending on place and year of publication. We consider it desirable in the interests of consistency and coherence to use the same method for all imprint tracings.

a. American imprints other than Connecticut

Uses field 651:4 (Subject added entry--geographic name; source not specified) with no subdivisions.
Present practice 651:4: [State. City. Date].
Example 651:4: Pennsylvania. Philadelphia. 1731.
Advantages
  • In current use
  • Can be retrieved with subject and keyword searches
Disadvantages
  • Not a subject--does not conform to defined contents of field 651
  • Not readily identifiable as a local tracing
  • Derived into other libraries' cataloging copy through the utilities
  • Conflicts with other methods of providing imprint access in YUL
Authority control implications Field 651:4: not subjected to automated authority control processing
 

Alternative 1: Uses field 752 (Added entry--hierarchical place name). Note: the subfield for the date is not authorized in USMARC, but a proposal has been submitted to MARBI by the RBMS Bibliographic Standards Committee. It is still uncertain whether subfield f with date information will be defined for field 752.
 
Alternative 1 752:: [Country |b State |d City |f date.] 
Example 752:: United States |b Pennsylvania |d Philadelphia |f 1731.
Advantages
  • Standard use of MARC--data fit definition and purpose of field 752
  • Available through keyword search
  • Keyword search results in Orbis sorted in reverse chronological order, which is an appropriate sort for this field
Disadvantages
  • The date is not yet and may not be authorized for field 752
  • No phrase search presently available in Orbis; however, a 752 keyword search is generally preferable to phrase searches because construction is hierarchical through country 
  • Phrase searches if implemented would need to begin with "United States" 
  • Would require substantial change in current practice
Authority control implications Field 752 not subjected to automated authority control processing
 

Alternative 2: Uses field 691:4 (Local subject added entry--geographic name; source not specified) with appropriate subfield divisions.
 
Alternative 2 691:4: [State |z City |y date.] 
Example 691:4: Pennsylvania |z Philadelphia |y 1731.
Advantages
  • Readily identifiable as a local tracing
  • Can be retrieved through subject and keyword indexing.
  • Not derived into other libraries' cataloging copy through the utilities
Disadvantages
  • Not a subject--does not conform to defined contents of field 691
  • Slightly different search key in Orbis
  • Would require change in current practice
Authority control implications Field 691 subjected to automated authority control base file processing
 

Alternative 3: Uses field 691:4 (Local subject added entry--geographic name; source not specified) with current data construction.
 
Alternative 3 691:4: [State. City. Date].
Example 691:4: Pennsylvania. Philadelphia. 1731.
Advantages
  • Same Orbis search key as present practice
  • Can be retrieved with subject and keyword searches
  • Not derived into other libraries' cataloging copy through the utilities
  • Would require only minimal change in current practice
Disadvantages
  • Not a subject--does not conform to defined contents of field 691
  • Completely nonstandard formatting of data 
  • Would require change in current practice
Authority control implications Field 691 subjected to automated authority control base file processing
 
 
b. Connecticut imprints.

Uses field 651:4 (Subject added entry--geographic name; source not specified) for direct access by city, printer's name in direct order, and imprint date without subdivisions.
 
Present practice 651:4: [City. Printer. Date].
Example 651:4: New Haven. B. Meacom. 1765. 
Advantages
  • In current use
  • Can be retrieved with subject and keyword searches
Disadvantages
  • Not a subject--does not conform to defined contents of field 651
  • Not readily identifiable as a local tracing
  • Derived into other libraries' cataloging copy through the utilities
  • Subdivision by printer's name based on piece in hand may result in divided files
  • Printer's name cannot be retrieved with other instances of the name with name searches
  • Conflicts with other methods of providing imprint access in YUL
Authority control implications Field 651:4 not subjected to automated authority control processing
 
 
 Alternative 1: Uses a combination of fields 752 (Added entry--hierarchical place name) and 7xx (Added entry--personal or corporate name), with relator term if desired.
 
Alternative 1 752:: [Country |b State |d City |f date.] 
7xx:x: [Printer], |e printer.
Example 752:4: United States |b Connecticut |d New Haven |f 1765. 
700:1: Meacom, B., |e printer.
Advantages
  • Standard use of MARC--data fit definitions and purposes of fields 752 and 700/710
  • Imprint data can be retrieved through keyword search
  • Printer's name can be retrieved through keyword searches as well as through name searches along with all other instances of the name 
Disadvantages
  • The date is not yet and may not be authorized for field 752
  • No phrase search presently available in Orbis; however, a 752 keyword search is generally preferable to phrase searches because construction is hierarchical through country 
  • Would require substantial change in current practice
Authority control implications
  • Field 752 not subjected to automated authority control processing.
  • Field 7xx is subjected to automated authority control processing; printer names would be formulated according to AACR2.
 
 
 Alternative 2: Uses a combination of fields 691:4 (Local subject added entry--geographic name; source not specified) with appropriate subfield divisions and 7xx (Added entry--personal or corporate name), with relator term if desired.
 
Alternative 2 691:4: [State |z City |y date.] 
7xx:x: [Printer], |e printer
Example 691:4: Connecticut |z New Haven |y 1765. 
700:1: Meacom, B., |e printer.
Advantages
  • Readily identifiable as a local tracing
  • Imprint data can be retrieved by subject and keyword indexing
  • Printer's name can be retrieved through keyword searches as well as through name searches along with all other instances of the name 
  • Not derived into other libraries' cataloging copy through the utilities
Disadvantages
  • Not a subject--does not conform to defined contents of field 691
  • Slightly different Orbis search key 
  • Would require substantial change in current practice
Authority control implications
  • Field 691 subjected to automated authority control base file processing
  • Field 7xx is subjected to automated authority control processing; printer names would be formulated according to AACR2. 
 
 
Alternative 3: Uses field 691:4 (Local subject added entry--geographic name; source not specified) with current data construction.
 
Alternative 3 691:4: [City. Printer. Date]. 
Example 691:4: New Haven. B. Meacom. 1765.
Advantages
  • Readily identifiable as a local tracing 
  • Same Orbis search key as current practice
  • Can be retrieved with subject and keyword searches 
  • Not derived into other libraries' cataloging copy through the utilities
  • Would require only minimal change in current practice
Disadvantages
  • Not a subject--does not conform to defined contents of field 691
  • Completely nonstandard formatting of data 
  • Printer's name cannot be retrieved with other instances of the name with name searches
  • Would require change in current practice
Authority control implications Field 691:4: not subjected to automated authority control processing
 
 
 c. Incunabula

Uses field 651:4 (Subject added entry--geographic name; source not specified) for country, city (both in authorized forms), printer's name in inverted form, and date.
 
Present practice 651:4: [Country. City. Printer. Date.]
Examples 651:4: Germany. Heidelberg. Knoblochtzer, Heinrich. 1490.
Advantages
  • In current use
  • Can be retrieved with subject and keyword searches
Disadvantages
  • Not a subject--does not conform to defined contents of field 651
  • Not readily identifiable as a local tracing
  • Derived into other libraries' cataloging copy through the utilities
  • Subdivision by printer's name based on piece in hand may result in divided files
  • Printer's name cannot be retrieved with other instances of the name with name searches
  • Conflicts with other methods of providing imprint access in YUL
Authority control implications Field 651:4: not subjected to automated authority control processing
 
 
 Alternative 1: Uses a combination of fields 752 (Added entry--hierarchical place name) and 7xx (Added entry--personal or corporate name), with relator terms if desired.
 
Alternative 1 752:: [Country |d City |f date.] 
7xx:x: [Printer], |e printer.
Example 752:: Germany |d Heidelberg |f 1490
700:1: Knoblochtzer, Heinrich, |e printer.
Advantages
  • Standard use of MARC--data fit definitions and purposes of fields 752 and 700/710
  • Imprint data can be retrieved through keyword search
  • Printer's name can be retrieved through keyword searches as well as through name searches along with all other instances of the name 
Disadvantages
  • The date is not yet and may not be authorized for field 752
  • No phrase search presently available in Orbis; however, a 752 keyword search is generally preferable to phrase searches because construction is hierarchical through country 
  • Would require substantial change in current practice
Authority control implications
  • Field 752 not subjected to automated authority control processing.
  • Field 7xx is subject to automated authority control processing; printer names would be formulated according to AACR2.
 
 
Alternative 2: Uses a combination of fields 691:4 (Local subject added entry--geographic name; source not specified) and 7xx (Added entry--personal or corporate name), with relator terms if desired.
 
Alternative 2 691:4: [Country |z City |y date.] 
7xx:x: [Printer], |e printer.
Examples 691:4: Germany |z Heidelberg |y 1490. 
700:1: Knoblochtzer, Heinrich, |e printer.
Advantages
  • Readily identifiable as a local tracing
  • Imprint data can be retrieved through subject and keyword search
  • Printer's name can be retrieved through keyword searches as well as through name searches along with all other instances of the name 
  • Not derived into other libraries' cataloging copy through the utilities
Disadvantages
  • Not a subject--does not conform to defined contents of field 691
  • Slightly different search key in Orbis
  • Would require substantial change in current practice
Authority control implications
  • Field 691:4 not subjected to automated authority control processing
  • Fields 7xx is subject to automated authority control processing; printer names would be formulated according to AACR2. 
 

Alternative 3: Uses field 691:4 (Local subject added entry--geographic name; source not specified) with current data construction.
 
Alternative 3 691:4: [Country. City. Printer. Date.]
Examples 691:4: Germany. Heidelberg. Knoblochtzer, Heinrich. 1490.
Advantages
  • Same Orbis search key as current practice
  • Can be retrieved with subject and keyword searches
  • Not derived into other libraries' cataloging copy through the utilities
  • Would require only minimal change in current practice
Disadvantages
  • Not a subject--does not conform to defined contents of field 691
  • Completely nonstandard formatting of data 
  • Printer's name cannot be retrieved with other instances of the name with name searches
  • Would require change in current practice
Authority control implications Field 691 subjected to automated authority control base file processing
 

 d. BAC imprints

All imprints in Great Britain except for London are traced in field 651:4 (Subject added entry--geographical name) with
topical subdivisions 'Imprints' and 'Specimens' and chronological subdivision.
 
Present practice 651:4: [Local place] |x Imprints |x Specimens |y [year]. 
Example 651:4: Edinburgh (Scotland) | x Imprints |x Specimens |y 1806. 
Advantages
  • In current use
  • Imprint data can be retrieved with subject and keyword searches.
Disadvantages
  • The addition of the subdivisions 'Imprints |x Specimens' with a chronological subdivision is not standard LCSH
  • Not readily identifiable as a local tracing
  • Derived into other libraries' cataloging copy through the utilities
  • Conflicts with other methods of providing imprint access in YUL
Authority control implications Field 651:4: not subjected to automated authority control processing
 

Alternative 1: Uses field 752 (Added entry--hierarchical place name)
 
Alternative 1 752:: [Country |d City |f date.] 
Example 752:: Scotland |d Edinburgh |f 1806.
Advantages
  • Standard use of MARC--data fit definition and purpose of field 752
  • Can be retrieved through keyword indexing
Disadvantages
  • The date is not yet and may not be authorized for field 752
  • No phrase search presently available in Orbis; however, a 752 keyword search is generally preferable to phrase searches because construction is hierarchical through country 
  • Phrase searches if implemented would need to begin with country name
  • Would require substantial change in current practice
Authority control implications Field 752 not subjected to automated authority control processing. 
 

Alternative 2: Uses field 691:4 (Local subject added entry--geographic name; source not specified) with current data
construction
 
Alternative 2 691:4: [Local place] |x Imprints |x Specimens |y [year]. 
Example 691:4: Edinburgh (Scotland) |x Imprints |x Specimens |y 1806.
Advantages
  • Readily identifiable as a local tracing
  • Can be retrieved through subject and keyword indexing
  • Not derived into other libraries' cataloging copy through the utilities
  • Would require only minimal change in current practice 
Disadvantages
  • Not a subject--does not conform to defined contents of field 691
  • Conflicts with methods of providing imprint indexing used by other units in YUL
  • Would require change in current practice
Authority control implications Field 691 subjected to automated authority control base file processing 
 

 Back to top  Forward to Subject tracing of non-subject names  Back to Collection tracings



 
Prepared by DJ Leslie on 16 January 1998
For comment, reply to Deborah J. Leslie
deborah.leslie@yale.edu
(203) 432-8377
(203) 432-7231 (fax)
Rare Book Catalog Librarian
Sterling Memorial Library
Yale University
PO Box 208240
New Haven, CT 06520-8240
http://www.library.yale.edu/cataloging/admin/imprint.htm