Originals vs. Reproductions

NEW PRACTICE: Since the Alma migration, the Metadata Standards Working Group has been working on creating an interim policy to address the relevant issues as Harvard Libraries moved away from the Single Record Policy towards the Multiple Record Policy. Because Alma handles purchased e-resources differently from prints, we are currently following the multiple record approach for prints and purchased e-resources prospectively; this means that the holdings of newly acquired printed material should NOT be attached to purchased e-resources bibliographic record (or vice versa). See Metadata Standards Working Group's wiki for commercially produced reproductions (microforms, CD-ROMs), and for locally produced reproductions.

PAST PRACTICE: It often happens that Houghton will hold an original copy of an item for which another Harvard library owns a microform. Per Harvard policy, all formats generally appear on a single bibliographic record (which describes the original print version), with information about the physical characteristics of the reproduction recorded in the 3xx fields in the appropriate holdings record. [cf. Section XI.6 (Paperbacks and Book Club Editions) for treatment of paperbacks and book club editions.] However, when the card catalog was converted, many of Houghton's original printed editions were added to records for microforms, and many duplicate records for microforms were entered in HOLLIS. In addition, HOLLIS now contains an ever-growing number of records for networked resources, such as EEBO. When upgrading these bibliographic records, delete duplicates where possible and edit the bibliographic record to reflect the print original. Some Houghton holdings records will have "papercopy" in an 866 field---this field should be deleted.

Duplicate Records

Many duplicate records appear in HOLLIS as a result of the batch-loading of series, microfilms, and electronic records, as well as many other causes.

Existing holdings and item records may be moved/relinked to different bibliographic records per instructions under Moving Holdings and Items on LTS wiki.

Bibliographic records may be merged (not overlayed!) per instructions under Merging Bib Records on LTS wiki.

Duplicate Copies

Houghton's collections are full of "duplicate" copies which vary in some copy-specific or bibliographically significant way. In the past, Houghton actively deaccessioned genuine duplicates, either on its own or in cooperation with the former Gifts & Exchange unit of HCL. Duplicate copies are not being deaccessioned at present. Catalogers have multiple options when it comes to classifying duplicate items:

Add as a copy B, C, etc. (and designating the first as copy A)* if following already classified first copy; if not, follow the current practice of using the accession numbers
Add to a different classification within a given scheme (e.g. a work of Tasso translated by Thomas Kyd and owned by Wordsworth might be classed variously for Tasso, Kyd, or Wordsworth – though keep in mind that an item accessioned for P&GA or Theatre should not be classed in the general Houghton scheme)

It is acceptable to not reclassify duplicate copies, though accuracy in all holdings needs verifying. (This is in direct contrast with earlier practice, which emphasized getting every item into a Houghton class.) The bottom line is to try to avoid getting bogged down in systematizing classification if it does not improve accessibility.

Given Houghton's serious space constraints, duplicates should be sent to HD (check with appropriate curator). In all cases, potential "duplicates" should be compared directly with other copies and appropriate notes added to the record as to issue/state, completeness, provenance, and condition.

*A time-saving option is to not mark the first copy as A, but just mark addition copies as B, C, etc. In this case (A) would not be in the holdings record, but (B), (C), would be. This option should be used with discretion, since for many books, it is essential to retrieve copies that appear to be duplicates.

Multiple Printings and Impressions

When cataloging modern books, the general advice is not to make multiple records for each printing and/or impression of a book. If the copy in hand belongs to a later printing/impression (as per notice on the t.p. verso), include this information in a 562 note in the holdings record. All printings/impressions should be added as additional holdings to the same bibliographic record unless another aspect makes it desirable to create separate record(s).

The OCLC's policy on when to make a new record provides important guidelines when deciding on whether or not to make a new record. When there are no changes to the text itself, the decision to create a new record may involve cataloger’s or curatorial judgment. DCRM(B)'s Appendix E., Variations Requiring a New Record provides an even more nuanced approach.

Undifferentiated names

Follow the interim guidelines outlined in the Best Practice for name access points in Alma.

Browser not supported