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
I realize that such co-occurrence constraining may be tricky to code.
On Wed, 24 Aug 2005, Michele Rothenberger wrote:
>> I'd like to see questions about the report card go to this list, so
>> everyone can learn together, and so that I can start to compile a
>> "frequently asked questions" document an improve the readme files and
>> 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 Rothenberger
> Syracuse University
> Special Collections Research Center
> Syracuse, NY
Special Collections Analyst/Librarian
Columbia University Libraries Digital Program
[log in to unmask]