We're planning to make an announcement shortly to add codes to the MARC
source codes (in the relator list) for these authority files-- it took a
little while to work them out with the institutions maintaining these
On Fri, 23 Sep 2005, Houghton,Andrew wrote:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Metadata Object Description Schema List
> > [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Rebecca S. Guenther
> > Sent: 20 September, 2005 09:42
> > To: [log in to unmask]
> > Subject: [MODS] MADS mapping draft
> > Please note that we've made some changes to the draft MARC
> > authorities to MADS mapping, since we discovered in writing
> > the stylesheet for conversion that the authority attribute
> > was missing. That became very complicated particularly
> > because of LCSH coding rules. A revision is up at:
> > http://www.loc.gov/standards/mads/mads-mapping.html
> > Please let us know if you see and possible errors.
> One thing I also noticed about the mappings was the value of the authority attribute. For the most part, the values follow the MARC relator list for thesaurus codes. So I see: lcsh, cash, aat, sears, rvm, nal, and directions to use 040$f or 7XX$2. But, then there are codes that are not reflected on the MARC relator list or are different, e.g., lcshcl <=> lcshac, naf, nlmnaf, lacnaf, etc.
> It seems to make sense that the authority attribute's value contain a code from the MARC relator list. So the question I have is why the difference for lcshac and will LC be adding the other missing codes to the MARC relator list?