On 3/23/06, Rebecca S. Guenther <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Sorry, all, I've been away and didn't answer this promptly.
> The MARC to MODS mapping at
> does not put 245$h in title. It puts it in physicalDescription with
> authority="gmd". However, when we changed that (a few years ago) we
> inadvertently left in the instruction concerning the order of subfields
> after $n and $p, so they never got changed in the transformation. The
> stylesheet does output 245$h as physicalDesription but only when it
> follows $a and leaves $h with the title if it follows other
> subfields. This is an error. So we have just fixed the stylesheet so that
> $h always goes into physicalDescription. We will also fix the mapping.
Rock! Thanks Rebecca!
> ^^ Rebecca S. Guenther ^^
> ^^ Senior Networking and Standards Specialist ^^
> ^^ Network Development and MARC Standards Office ^^
> ^^ 1st and Independence Ave. SE ^^
> ^^ Library of Congress ^^
> ^^ Washington, DC 20540-4402 ^^
> ^^ (202) 707-5092 (voice) (202) 707-0115 (FAX) ^^
> ^^ [log in to unmask] ^^
> ^^ ^^
> On Thu, 16 Mar 2006, Ross Singer wrote:
> > Hi all,
> > I have a question about the MARC to MODS transform. Why does it put the 245
> > subfield h in the title tag? This is not actually part of the title, so it
> > seems to degrade the integrity of the record to put it there.
> > Has there been discussion to put this value somewhere else?
> > physicalDescription possibly? An attribute to "title"?
> > At least in MARC, it's easy to just leave out of a title... This is less
> > easy in MODS post transform. I could always just leave it out of the
> > transform, but, at the same time, I don't want to /lose/ that data.
> > How are other people coping with this?
> > Thanks,
> > -Ross.
[log in to unmask]
GPLS -- PINES Development