Bound-withs

A Brief History of BHL Bound-withs

Please sign your comments with 4 "~" tildas

Questions to be addressed

• How did your institution/scanning center handled bound-withs when you first started scanning? Were bound-withs held back (like fold-outs) or rejected?
• Has the handling of bound-withs changed? If so, please explain. Approx. when did this change occur?

AMNH

FIELD

- lipscombb Dec 17, 2009 Can you confirm that bound-withs were NOT scanned through your work with UIUC?
- cgiannoni Dec 24, 2009None of the Fieldiana's would be in the bound-with category, but maybe a couple of the items that were scanned in relation to the Hymenoptera project? Do you have a specific title that's a problem?

MCZ

- jdeveer Dec 18, 2009We have been doing bound-withs from the beginning and have not changed our methods. Our bound-with volumes have a single barcode, which is repeated on our packing list for as many times as there are items within the physical bound volume. Each item is given its own line on the packing list with bibliographic description, including its unique catalog number. Below is a screen shot of a portion of a packing list. The 5 items are 5 distinct monographs bound together - note the barcode number is the same for all items, but each item has a unique HOLLIS# (our catalog number).

MBLWHOI

- matt707 Dec 18, 2009We know we have been fortunate that the Boston scanning center from the start was very accommodating in dividing or joining together the content within bound-withs in what ever way we needed them to be considered.

MOBOT

- lipscombb Dec 17, 2009 How do you all deal with bound-withs?
- mmabeln Dec 22, 2009 In our catalogue, bound-withs are catalogued separately (with their own, complete MARC records) and then linked together, sharing the same barcode. When I send them to scan, I un-link them, assign them each a new barcode, and then parse them through separately. This gives each title its own point of entry and MARC record in BHL. When the scanners are finished, I delete the temporary barcodes and relink the two records in our catalogue. I had been considering uploading a secondary MARC record for one of the titles, but given the problems outlined below I think it's better to stick with out current workflow.

NHM

NYBG

SIL

BoundWithBHLNotes.doc

Issues in Portal

• For bound-withs that are treated as a single scanned cover-to-cover item, there is only 1 MARC record.
• Yes, we have the ability to upload additional MARC records to point to this item, however
  • The additional MARC record will be considered "secondary" to the existing MARC record
  • Secondary titles are not currently searchable unless expressly selected as part of the Advanced Search options
  • Under the current system, 2 MARC records cannot both be the "primary" record for a given item
  • This back-end hierarchy is necessary to allow for certain bibliographic relationships such as monographic series and facilitates the portal editing practice of merging titles
• Per IA identifier there is only 1 set of page images therefore
• Clicking on the "Download/About this book" dropdown and selecting "Bibliographic Information" will take you to the original MARC record associated with the item when it was scanned by IA, i.e. not the new MARC record uploaded

Treating bound-withs as pseudo-separates, meaning that a dummy barcode is added complete with its own Wonderfetch at the start of the new content within the bound-with avoids the issues outlined above.

For bound-withs that were not treated in this way, we need to come up with a solution.

• Can we estimate how many bound-withs we need to address?
• Could your institution provide a list of bound-with items that need fixing?