I don't usually respond to these messages, but feel I must on this one!
The fact that systems reorder 5XX fields and that so many of the
(246, 022, 780, etc.) produce notes made us realize in CONSER many years
ago that trying to follow AACR2 order was folly and not worth the time.We
do have a bit of a pecking order for the 500 note, where we can give the
Descritpion based on as the last note. However, trying to carefully
impose AACR2 on MARC and systems seems totally against the core record and
PCC principles, as far as I understand them.
On Wed, 9 Feb 2000, Robert Maxwell wrote:
> At 10:50 AM 2/9/00 -0500, Jean Craig wrote:
> > I had just approached our BIBCO trainer with a similar
> >question--whether I could code as pcc core those records for
> >videorecordings where the access points were authorized but the
> >descriptive elements (particularly the 5XX notes) were out of strict
> >AACR2 order. He pointed me to the remarks mentioned above-- and their
> >conclusion-- and reminded me that all elements of description and
> >analysis in the entire record have to be in apple-pie order.
> Pardon me for expressing heresy here on the apple-pie-ness order of notes
> needed in order to code a record as following AACR2 (and/or PCC). Please be
> aware that a lot of libraries do their cataloging on their own system (why
> in the world did they pay all that money for a cataloging system if they
> don't intend to catalog on it?) rather than on a utility, and then upload
> the records to the utility. There are a lot of systems out there that
> automatically flip 5XX fields into MARC order, which as we all know is NOT
> AACR2 X.7 order. Are catalogers on such systems to be excluded from
> creating PCC records?
> Furthermore, what does the introduction of the 246 field (which creates a
> lot of notes--does it not?--replacing former 5XX fields), do to the strict
> apple-pie order of our AACR2-coded MARC 21 records? Can we no longer code a
> record AACR2 that has the cover title "The fair American" (note required
> under 2.7B4) because now we put that particular note in a 246 field, which
> would precede in the MARC record a language note (2.7B2)? What about the
> notes created by the 78X fields? MARC coding has in many ways made the
> AACR2 stipulation about the order of the notes pretty meaningless, in my
> As it happens our own system does not flip the fields into MARC order, and
> neither does RLIN, the utility we use. But I also have to admit that I do
> not think to myself, as I add notes (that is, those that fall into 5XX
> fields) to an original record or look at a record I am upgrading to AACR2,
> "Now, is this strictly in the order AACR2 prescribes?" Perhaps I should.
> Does everyone else? On the other hand, AACR2 itself gives the cataloger an
> out: 2.7B allows the cataloger to put the notes in a different order if
> he/she thinks a note (or notes, I think) is more important than the others.
> I note a National Library of Canada rule interpretation to 1.7B:
> "Generally, give notes in the order in which they are listed in 1.7B.
> However, because of the difficulty in providing a specific order for
> general notes in the DOBIS environment, make no effort to follow the order
> specifically." (Howarth, AACR2 Decisions & Rule Interpretations, 6th
> edition). This same difficulty certainly applies to the MARC 21
> environment. I don't find an LCRI on the subject, but perhaps I overlooked it.
> I do not agree that we are required to reorder notes found in cataloging
> that we are upgrading to AACR2 just to make the order of the notes fit the
> current order in AACR2 in order to code the record "a" and pcc. Did I miss
> some sort of directive or is it just obvious to everyone else?
> Bob Maxwell
> Robert L. Maxwell
> Special Collections and Ancient Languages Cataloger
> 6430 Harold B. Lee Library
> Brigham Young University
> Provo, UT 84602
> (801) 378-5568
> [log in to unmask]
Library of Congress
[log in to unmask]