LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for MARC Archives


MARC Archives

MARC Archives


[email protected]


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

MARC Home

MARC Home

MARC  May 2006

MARC May 2006

Subject:

Re: Fwd: ANSI/NISO Z39.71 -- Holdings statements for bibliographic items

From:

John Hostage <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

MARC <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Mon, 15 May 2006 15:18:30 -0400

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (187 lines)

1. Area of conflict between ANSI/NISO Z39.71 and MARC 21

ANSI/NISO Z39.71 is a little inconsistent about what it calls a separate 
level and what it means by that.  In the case of day notations, it seems 
to mean nothing more than an instruction not to use a colon.  Our system 
(Aleph) accomplishes this even though the day is in a separate subfield 
in the MARC holdings format.  I don't see any need to change the format. 
  If the month were combined with the day, I don't see how prediction or 
expansion could work, and you couldn't use numeric codes for the months.

On the other hand, there is nothing to prevent you from combining the 
levels in your holdings record if you prefer, e.g.
863 ... $i 2006 $j May 12
If you're only concerned with display and not with prediction or 
expansion, it doesn't matter what you put in 853/863 $j.  The 853 could 
be (month) or (date) or whatever.  But the best solution is probably to 
program the system to recognize when it should omit the colon.

2.	Allowing for flexibility in how libraries choose to display serial 
holdings

Even though we try to follow Z39.71 as much as possible, we feel no 
qualms about displaying *item* records for serials in reverse 
chronological order.   I don't think it occurred to anyone that this 
rule might apply to item records.  Serial *holdings* are usually 
displayed as compressed statements, and I can't think of any way to do 
that besides lowest to highest, earliest to latest.

3.	Additional example within Enumeration section

Agree that another example would be useful, but since the maintenance 
revision of Z39.71 is now out for ballot, I don't think there's a chance 
of such a change this time around.  However, see examples 18-19 in the 
appendix.

John Hostage


Julian Everett Allgood wrote:
> Comments on ANSI/NISO Z39.71
> 
> 1.	Area of conflict between ANSI/NISO Z39.71 and MARC 21
> 
> While it is understood that ANSI/NISO Z39.71 is primarily a standard
> addressing holdings displays and that MARC 21 represents the standard
> libraries use to record, store and exchange data, we need to be careful
> in developing instructions that may result in conflicts between the two.
> 
> In attempting to migrate NYU's holdings data in our current ILMS
> migration, NYU has encountered one such area of conflict.
> 
> In Section 5.5.5.2 addressing Dates, ANSI/NISO Z39.71 states clearly:
> 
> <snip>
> 
> "When chronology below the first level is recorded, use a colon to
> separate the year from the month. In recording chronology data that
> contains day notations, do *not* treat these as a separate hierarchical
> level, and do *not* separate them with a colon." [Emphasis added] (p. 34
> of ANSI/NISO Z39.71 1999, and p. 44 of the revised standard).
> 
> Examples:
> 	
> 	1982:Feb
> 
> 	1982:Feb 1 not 1982:Feb.:1
> 
> 
> <snip>
> 
> However, in the MARC 21 Holdings Format documentation, examples that
> include both month and day designations do treat them as separate
> hierarchical levels and by placing them in separate subfields, do
> separate them with a colon.
> 
> The following is copied from the MARC 21 Holdings documentation via the
> MARC website:
> 
> <snip>
> 
> 
> 853 
> 00$81$av.$bsect.$u12$vr$cno.$u7$vr$dpt.$uvar$vr$i(year)$j(month)$k(day)$lweek$wd$x01
> 
> 853 
> 22$81$av.$bno.$u12$vr$i(year)$j(month)$k(day)$wm$x01
> 
> <snip>
> 
> In this instance I actually believe it is ANSI/NISO Z39.71 that is
> correct, and the MARC 21 Holdings instructions that need to be revised
> to align these instructions. Here's why:
> 
> In the case of serial dailies or weeklies that bear specific day
> chronological designations, I believe the month and day combination
> represent a single intellectual data element  two bits of data, but a
> single data element. That is, the designation for May 12, 2006 is a
> singular hierarchical concept consisting of two data elements: the
> month/day designation and the year designation. May 12, 1492 represents
> a very different concept than May 12, 2006. Nonetheless, both are valid
> date designations.
> 
> However, if we parse that day designation into a separate hierarchical
> unit, systems are left with three separate data elements, and a much
> greater potential for confusion. Once we separate the 12th from May, the
> number itself loses an important contextual relationship and the month
> designation represents a 31 day period rather than a 24 hour period.
> 
> I feel very strongly that the MARC 21 Holdings instructions should be
> revised to parallel the current instructions in Section 5.5.5.2 of
> ANSI/NISO Z39.71.
> 
> 
> 2.	Allowing for flexibility in how libraries choose to display serial
> holdings
> 
> Page 24 of ANSI/NISO Z39.71 1999 (and p. 34 of the revised text),
> includes the following instruction :
> 
> "Record enumeration and chronology data in logical sequence; that is,
> lowest enumeration data to highest, earliest to latest."
> 
> I realize that this instruction only addresses how data is 'recorded,'
> however as this is a display standard I have had colleagues and systems
> librarians question how this statement should apply to displays.
> 
> For multipart monographs, librarians and users prefer to sequence
> holdings in ascending order, from earliest to latest.
> 
> However, serial usage studies demonstrate that many users are more
> interested in the most recent issues of serial titles. Therefore for
> serial resources, most librarians and users prefer systems to display
> the latest issues received first. That is, serial holdings should be
> displayed in descending order, from the latest to the earliest. 
> 
> The standard would benefit from a clear statement allowing libraries
> flexibility in determining how best to sequence and display Continuing
> Resource holdings based on the above.
> 
> 
> 3.	Additional example within Enumeration section
> 
> ANSI/NISO Z39.71 Section 5.5.4 addresses enumeration and chronology data
> elements as separate but parallel and in the majority of cases when both
> are present, this is the case. However there are some instances in which
> a chronological designation must serve as the highest level of
> enumeration. I believe including an explanation and example of this
> would be helpful.
> 
> For example, with a title like the monthly Voprosy istorii (Moscow,
> Russia : 1945) ((DLC)   49035588), the twelve issue designations repeat
> each year using the year designation as the highest level of enumeration
> (i.e., 2006:no.1, 2006:no.2, 2006:no.3, 2006:no.4,  ).
> 
> An example of this quite common occurrence within Section 5.5.4.1 Levels
> of Enumeration would be instructive. 
> 
> 
> 4.	Miscellaneous concerns regarding the current automation environment
> 
> Finally, I believe that based on the punctuation guidelines in ANSI/NISO
> Z39.71, there may be some concerns regarding library web-based catalogs. 
> 
> 1.	Some of these display statements include spaces or blanks, which to
> many systems are significant data elements having specific meaning.
> Within long, detailed holdings statements the presence of spaces also
> often results in <hard returns> that can interrupt holding statements
> and generate confusion. 
> 
> 2.	ANSI/NISO Z39.71 instructs catalogers to enclose Specific Extent
> Notes (5.5.6) in angle brackets. I have heard some concern that these
> punctuation elements may be misinterpreted within HTML web-based
> catalogs. Is that possible?
> 
> 
> I hope this is helpful, and please let me know if any of it needs
> further explanation.

-- 
___________________________________________________________
John Hostage                  Authorities Librarian
Langdell Hall                 [log in to unmask]
Harvard Law School Library    (617) 495-3974 (voice)
Cambridge, MA 02138           (617) 496-4409 (fax)
http://www.law.harvard.edu/library/
-----------------------------------------------------------

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

September 2023
August 2023
July 2023
June 2023
May 2023
April 2023
March 2023
February 2023
January 2023
December 2022
November 2022
October 2022
September 2022
August 2022
July 2022
June 2022
May 2022
April 2022
March 2022
February 2022
January 2022
December 2021
November 2021
October 2021
September 2021
August 2021
July 2021
June 2021
May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
January 2002
December 2001
November 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
July 2001
June 2001
May 2001
April 2001
March 2001
February 2001
January 2001
December 2000
November 2000
October 2000
September 2000
August 2000
July 2000
June 2000
May 2000
April 2000
March 2000
February 2000
January 2000
December 1999
November 1999
October 1999
September 1999
August 1999
July 1999
June 1999
May 1999
April 1999
March 1999
February 1999
January 1999
December 1998
November 1998
October 1998
September 1998
August 1998
July 1998
June 1998
May 1998
April 1998
March 1998
February 1998
January 1998
December 1997
November 1997
October 1997
September 1997
August 1997
July 1997
June 1997
May 1997
April 1997
March 1997
February 1997
January 1997
December 1996
November 1996
October 1996
September 1996
August 1996
July 1996
June 1996
May 1996
April 1996
March 1996
February 1996
January 1996

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.LOC.GOV

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager