As 662, which is a completely new field, subfield 2 can be made mandatory to identify all source thesaurus, even lcsh/naf.
However, I am concerned about the implications for field 752. The field has been used by many to identify the place of publication in a hierarchical fashion, using terms that basically would be considered to be lcsh/naf. Would this proposal require that all these records have a subfield 2 "lcsh/naf" added to them?
We could instead avoid disrupting existing data by defining indicator 2 as "Source of term" , considering 752 ind.2=blank to mean that the source is lcsh/naf, and define ind.2=7 to be "Source specified in subfield $2"
In fact, in fields 656, 657, 658, indicator 2 is "Source of term" and ind.2=7 is "Source specified in subfield $2" even though no other indicator values are defined. Thus, we could maintain the parallelism between 752 and 662 by also defining ind.2=7 in 662.
Pat
Pat Riva
Romance Languages Cataloguer/Bibliographic Database Specialist
McGill University Libraries
3459 McTavish
Montreal, Quebec H3A 1Y1
514-398-4790
fax: 514 398-8919
|