"6. Regarding the recommended encodinganalog value for acqinfo -- we've been using 541 but RC recommends 584. Referencing the online MARC information at http://www.loc.gov/marc/bibliographic/ I find that 541 is "immediate source of acquisition" while 584 is "accumulation and frequency of use." Seems to me that 541 is closer to the intended use of acqinfo. Thoughts?"
I think that 541 is the appropriate number since that is also how
catalog records are numbered in MARC format.
Michele Rothenberger wrote:
>I've started running some of our EAD finding aids through the EAD report card and I have a few questions that I thought I'd throw out for consideration.
>1. The RC says that every c0# element must have the LEVEL attribute set. It flags this as "Req" which means "Required by the DTD." However, this does NOT seem to be required by the DTD, as witnessed by the fact that when I parse my document against the DTD it is not flagged as an error. Thoughts on this?
>2. For several of the elements in the eadheader section, the RC says that the encodinganalog attribute is Mandatory. For some of these elements, the RC tells me what the value should be, e.g. "For MARC21: '546' . For DC 'Language' . " However, for some of these elements (e.g. creation), it does not give a DC value, only a MARC value. Given that we are using DC as the relatedencoding for the eadheader, what should be do for these elements?
>3. For the ead/archdesc/did/origination element, the RC recommends that encodinganalog be set to 100 or 110; however, we're putting that information in the child ead/archdesc/did/origination/persname or ead/archdesc/did/origination/corpname element so as to attach it more precisely to the actual name. Anyone see any problems with the way we're doing it?
>4. On the other hand, for the ead/archdesc/did/physdesc/extent element, the RC recommends encodinganalog set to 300. However, we're putting it in the parent physdesc element, since there can be multiple extent elements and putting 300 in the encodinganalog of the parent seems to increase the chance they'll all be captured correctly. Anyone see problems with this?
>5. For the various subject heading and name elements (persname, corpname, subject, genre, geogname, etc) the RC recommends setting the source attribute. Obviously we've got aat, lcsh, oclc etc -- but what if there is no "official" source for something, is it better to leave the attribute blank or to set it to "local" ?
>6. Regarding the recommended encodinganalog value for acqinfo -- we've been using 541 but RC recommends 584. Referencing the online MARC information at http://www.loc.gov/marc/bibliographic/ I find that 541 is "immediate source of acquisition" while 584 is "accumulation and frequency of use." Seems to me that 541 is closer to the intended use of acqinfo. Thoughts?
>7. Has any kind of consensus been reached on the format of the encodinganalog attribute values -- specifically, is it better to just put 245 rather than 245$a ? Or does it matter? The RC's recommendations all appear to be just the main number without any delimiters...
>Thanks for any and all response.
>Special Collections Research Center
The American Catholic History Research Center and
101 Life Cycle Institute
The Catholic University of America
Washington, D.C. 20064