sul-dlss
STORY: update display of MARC 795 (Collection name)
We need to plan for the display of MARC 795 which will be used for physical collection names.
In Phase 1, we'll:
- Add the 795 ($a and $p) to the Subject index (since public services staff are accustomed to the collection name being there)
- Add the 795 ($a and $p) to the display in search results. Use label "Physical collection". If the record also has a Finding add or link to a digital collection, place the 795 immediately below the Finding Aid link or the digital collection link.
- Change label used for digital collections in search results to "Digital collection" (currently just "Collection")
- In the record view, move the display of the 795 to the top of the record - near Title, Responsibility, Imprint, and Series.
- Hyperlink the 795 collection name in both the search results and record view, continuing to use the Subject term index.
Example record: Poetry Example record with multiple 795 tags: Asian American review Example record with 795$p: Gedanken zu Führungen durch das Goetheanum in Dornach ; Das Ruhrgebiet im Erlebnisfeld der Geschichte Example record with both physical and digital collections on the same record: City of San Diego
In Phase 2, we would like the help of a designer to holistically review how we are displaying Physical AND Digital collection information in the search results and record view. Some details to note in this review:
- Digital Collections appear in a "Context" panel, which can appear offscreen and low in the record (especially if there are long lists of physical items in the "At the library" panel.) Example needed
- Physical collections in general collections (i.e. stacks) don't typically have collection records, and there is no plan within the Metatdata dept. to create them. They will not have a collection description to display.
- Special collections Metadata staff do create collection records for some physical collections. Example: Robert Creeley papers
- Metadata & subject specialist staff feel collection information (both Digital and Physical) is important enough to have its own index (added to the dropdown of the fields search), and "be featured prominently" in the record view.
- Special Collections should be consulted on any planning. They have LOTS of physical collection notes, digital collections, and unique metadata practices.
Background: Detailed background on the effort can be found in the JIRA ticket: SW-3919. The gist is that historically print collection name data has been added to the MARC 690. That means it displays in the record view under "Subject" with a label "Local subject". Example record: https://searchworks.stanford.edu/view/374067 It's also indexed under Subject. That's became increasingly problematic for Metadata staff wanted collection name separated out from Subject. They also argued that collection name should be prominently displayed and indexed separately.
Data transition plan: Metadata staff (Vitus & Jeanette) have been adding MARC 795 tags - duplicating the data (temporarily) in both the MARC 690 and MARC 795 fields. This way, collection name would continue to display until we planned, coded, and deployed for the MARC 795 field. After that is complete, Metadata staff will work to remove the collection data from the MARC 690 and the project will be complete.
Example of record that is part of multiple print collections: https://searchworks.stanford.edu/view/5528103
It might complicate matters, but acknowledging that we have a display solution for digital collections that includes building the "Context" section the left bar under "At the Library" and we do display the digital collection link in the search results. Example: https://searchworks.stanford.edu/view/11878116; and search results: https://searchworks.stanford.edu/catalog?q=%22Historical+geography+California+San+Diego+Maps+21st+century.%22&search_field=subject_terms
