The Canadian Committee on MARC met on June 15 and reviewed the summer proposals and discussion papers.
We support the efforts to extend the Classification format so that it fully supports the DDC, however, we urge caution in regards to storing partial numbers or portions of numbers in field 082 in the bibliographic format. This field is extremely important for copy cataloguing, and the expectation is that numbers given in this field are legitimate call numbers that can be applied by copy cataloguing staff.
2.1: External table numbers in $z in bibliographic 082
This section lacks examples of potential use in bibliographic records, so it is not clear whether the field would include a fully developed number or not. If it is intended to hold just the number from the table, as in the Classification format examples, then such a field in the bibliographic format would be misleading for copy cataloguing.
2.2: Internal add tables in $y in x53, 68x of the Classification format and in Bibliographic 082 or Authority 083
This coding seems useful in the Classification format.
However, in the Bibliographic 082 or Authority 083, similarly to 2.1 above, partial classification numbers would be misleading for copy cataloguing.
2.3 Component parts
Prefer a separate field.
2.4 Classification number edition
I'd like to clarify whether including the language after the edition (as in $2 22/ger) would be done uniformly for all translations, or only when the translation also includes expansions? If there are significant differences between the translations, then having this information would indicate whether the classification number is appropriate to use for copy cataloguing or not.
2.5-2.6 Designating optional numbers
We support coding to identify in bibliographic records which numbers are the standard number and which are from the application of options, as this will assist copy cataloguing operations to determine which numbers can be accepted without review.
However, our preference would be to authorize a new subfield for the optional number, allowing the optional numbers to remain in the same 082 as the standard numbers for each Dewey edition, and to implement this new subfield in conjunction with a new edition of Dewey, which would make a clear distinction between current practice and legacy data. We do not support the option given in section 2.6.1 of adding $m with codes to indicate this information. Multiple fully developed numbers which just view the topic from a different point of view, or by following different national options, can be legitimately added in additional 082 (in this case the new $5 may well explain why this is the case). These numbers can serve for access, but could also be selected for use in copy cataloguing.
For the recording of multiple access numbers that are not fully developped, and thus should not be used in copy cataloguing, we support the approach proposed in section 2.6.2, using a separate field 085 (extending the definition of the similar proposal from section 2.3). These two forms of access numbers are in fact quite different and are better separate.
2.9 Number hierarchy
The examples do not seem to be of complete fields, as they do not show the tag number, nor whether the new subfield $e is to be used in conjunction with the existing textual subfields $h and $k. Is $e intended to be a numerical alternative to $h and $k? Or could both subfields be used to complement each other?
Pat
Pat Riva
Romance Languages Cataloguer/Bibliographic Database Specialist (on leave)
McGill University Libraries
3459 McTavish
Montreal, Quebec H3A 1Y1
Canada
|