Sorry, I misspoke (or wrote). The report card is designed to use the
syntax that is used in the Guidelines. The syntax wasn't recommended per
se. In the guidelines they use
856$u
Fox, Michael wrote:
> I find no direction in the guidelines for the representation of MARC
> indicator values which are significant in transformations into MARC for
> 1XX, 6XX, and 7XX fields. Perhaps I missed it.
>
> Michael
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Encoded Archival Description List [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf
> Of Elizabeth Shaw
> Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2005 3:06 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: RLG EAD Report Card - questions
>
>
> RLG recommends, if you are contributing their database, that you utilize
>
> the syntax used in the guidelines. (And in fact that is what the Report
> Card expects)
>
>
> Liz Shaw
>
> Fox, Michael wrote:
>
>>I concur with Terry that MARC encoding analogs for <eadheader> are
>>generally, and probably always, inappropriate or irrelevant. Header
>>data relates to the finding aid, not the stuff.
>>
>>Except where the finding aid is in fact a publication that is being
>>cataloged, one catalogs the collection itself. Therefore, any MARC
>>metadata should come from <archdesc> rather than <eadheader> elements.
>>
>>This also raises the question as to how MARC fields, indicator values,
>
>
>>and subfields are being or should be coded in @encodinganalog inasmuch
>
>
>>there is no standard syntax.
>>
>>Michael
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Encoded Archival Description List [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf
>
>
>>Of Elizabeth Shaw
>>Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2005 1:47 PM
>>To: [log in to unmask]
>>Subject: Re: RLG EAD Report Card - questions
>>
>>
>>Hi
>> As it turns out, the DC values were not written into the guidelines
>>at
>>
>>the time that the report card was developed (last August). One could
>>change the rules file so that it contains the appropriate DC values.
>>
>>There is documentation about how to create additional rules which
>>comes
>>with the package. You could use those to figure out how to modify the
>>existing rules file.
>>
>>
>>Liz Shaw
>>
>>Terry Catapano wrote:
>>
>>
>>>My understanding in each of these cases is that the RC is saying that
>>>an
>>>element or attribute is mandatory and suggests *possible* values for
>>>MARC, not that the values are mandatory. As for the appropriateness of
>>
>>
>>>the MARC values, it all depends on how one would go about cataloging
>>
>>the
>>
>>
>>>finding aid, which is what is within the scope of the eadheader (and
>>
>>its
>>
>>
>>>descendant encodinganalogs), not the material described in the finding
>>
>>
>>>aid. That said, the values seem reasonable.
>>>
>>>With regard to the possible values provided by the RC, something I
>>>would
>>>like to see is making the suggested values for encodinganalog come
>>
>>from
>>
>>
>>>the encoding declared in the "current" relatedencoding attribute. In
>>
>>my
>>
>>
>>>case, for eadheader it is DC, so the possible values for MARC are
>>>irrelevant.
>>>
>>>I realize that such co-occurrence constraining may be tricky to code.
>>>
>>>Terry
>>>
>>>
>>>On Wed, 24 Aug 2005, Michele Rothenberger wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>I'd like to see questions about the report card go to this list, so
>>>>
>>>>that
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>everyone can learn together, and so that I can start to compile a
>>>>>"frequently asked questions" document an improve the readme files
>>>>>and
>>>>
>>>>the
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>source code itself.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Per Merilee's invitation, I'll start things off with some items that
>>>>the report card (RC) flags as errors. I have looked at the Library
>>>>of Congress material on the related MARC fields
>>>>(http://www.loc.gov/marc/bibliographic/) and have some questions.
>>>>
>>>>1) The RC says it's mandatory that PUBLISHER
>>>>(ead/eadheader/filedesc/publicationstmt/publisher) should have a MARC
>>>>encoding analog of 260$b. The 260 field seems to be for publication
>>
>>of
>>
>>
>>>>the *material* (books, letters, what have you). Per the EAD cookbook
>>
>>
>>>>and the EAD tag library, PUBLICATIONSMT and its child elements
>>>>contain information about the publication of the finding aid, not of
>>>>the material itself. As such 260 doesn't seem appropriate.
>>>>
>>>>2) The RC says it's mandatory that
>>>>ead/eadheader/filedesc/publicationstmt/date should have a MARC
>>>>encoding analog of 260$c. Same question applies as for #1.
>>>>
>>>>3) The RC says it's mandatory that CREATION
>>>>(ead/eadheader/profiledesc/creation) should have a MARC encoding
>>>>analog of 500. MARC 500 is for note fields relating to the material,
>>
>>
>>>>whereas PROFILEDESC and its child elements are for information about
>>>>the finding aid, right? So 500 doesn't seem appropriate.
>>>>
>>>>4) The RC says it's mandatory that
>>>>ead/eadheader/profiledesc/langusage/language should have a MARC
>>>>encoding analog of 546. MARC 546 is for "the language of the
>>>>described materials" whereas PROFILEDESC and its child elements are
>>>>for information about the finding aid, right? So 546 doesn't seem
>>>>appropriate. Is it possible this is an accidental overlap of the
>>>>other usage of LANGUAGE as a child of LANGMATERIAL? That's where 546
>>
>>
>>>>would be correct, since LANGMATERIAL covers languages used in the
>>>>actual collection items.
>>>>
>>>>Any clarification on these points would be much appreciated!
>>>>
>>>>Michele
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>-=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=-
>>>>Michele Rothenberger
>>>>Syracuse University
>>>>Special Collections Research Center
>>>>Syracuse, NY
>>>>-=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=-
>>>>
>>>
>>>Terry Catapano
>>>Special Collections Analyst/Librarian
>>>Columbia University Libraries Digital Program
>>>212-854-9942
>>>[log in to unmask]
|