At 11:23 AM 1/4/2006, A. Ralph Papakhian wrote:
>this use of $n seems to make sense. so should the 3rd 410 under
>"Repository Designation" have $n instead of $p before Papyrus Berolinensis
>8502?
>i don't see how that could be $p ??????
Yes, absolutely. Thanks for finding this. I suspect that this is just a
plain ol' typo, because $n would always have been used for something with a
number in it.
The problem arises (very infrequently I will admit) when the designation
(used in either a heading or a reference tracing) does not contain a "number":
British Library. $k Manuscript. $?? Lansdowne
Bodleian Library. $k Manuscript. $?? Codex Mendoza
In current authority (and bib) records (unless they've been changed after
Dec. 19), the terminal subfields of both of these are coded $p. The MARC
documentation (the bit at the beginning describing X10 headings) seems to
indicate that subfield $p is only used in the title segment of name/title
headings. Since there is no subfield $t in these strings, they would
appear not to be name/title headings and therefore subfield $p shouldn't be
used. (Indexing schemes of library systems may have been designed with
this restriction in mind. In one system I will refrain from naming,
subfield $p is ignored unless preceded by $t, leading to ugly
confusion.) Subfield code $n suggests itself as a possibility, because
it's allowed in both the name and title segments.
(Not that anyone is interested: My own preference would probably be to use
$t instead of $k, or perhaps to declare that $k without $t also begins the
title segment of a name/title heading; but one thing at a time.)
Gary L. Strawn, Authorities Librarian, etc.
Northwestern University, 1970 Campus Drive, Evanston IL 60208-2300
e-mail: [log in to unmask] voice: 847/491-2788 fax: 847/491-8306
Forsan et haec olim meminisse iuvabit.
|