I'm grateful to those (Manon Theroux, Yale, got in first) who reminded me
of the existence of the CPSO statement on this issue, dated June 2003
My memory isn't what it was!
However, although what the memo says about Voyager's limitations in respect
of value "f" in 008/09 is true enough, I'm less clear about the relevance
of this value to the issue covered by the memo in the first place. The
implication of the statement is that an NAR along the following lines:
151 $a Cambridge (England)
781 $z England $z Cambridge
would require value "f" in 008/09, but that's not what the MARC format says
"Code f indicates that the 15X field contains an established general or
chronological term or a geographic name heading that is also authorized for
use as a subdivision in a subject access point in a bibliographic record."
In the Cambridge example above, the 151 *isn't* authorised for use as a
subdivision - the 781 (in indirect order) *is*, not the 151. If the 151
were "France" then "f" would indeed be correct - but then you wouldn't need
a 781 to show the indirect form.
So whereas I started the week perplexed by one thing, I'm ending it
perplexed by quite another one. Oh dear. Any MARC experts out there care to
chip in, because I'm finding it hard to reconcile the MARC documentation
with the CPSO statement in this regard.
Mary Charles asked if there was a project "in mind". I'm sure there are
smart programers out there who could create indirect forms for 151s for the
vast majority of the backfile. I guess it would certainly be a "project",
for all sorts of reasons. But I don't think anyone's working on it right
now. Perhaps, since it's Friday, there's a smart programer who would like
to comment on that bit too.
Thanks for your collective help.
Head, Collection Development and Description
Cambridge University Library
West Road, Cambridge CB3 9DR, England
email: [log in to unmask] fax: +44 (0)1223 333160
phone: +44 (0)1223 333069 (with voicemail) or
phone: +44 (0)1223 333000 (ask for pager 036)