I am confused about this thread.
I believe there already is agreement to make 040 $e repeatable in Update 11: http://www.loc.gov/marc/RDAinMARC29.html (see at the end of the page).
--Clément Arsenault (Université de Montréal).
De : MARC [mailto:[log in to unmask]] De la part de Robert Maxwell
Envoyé : 2 février 2010 11:01
À : [log in to unmask]
Objet : Re: 040 subfield e
DCRMB is a supplement to the basic cataloging code. The rare rules are based on the principle that if the general rules can be used for rare cataloging, then the general rules apply and there is no special rare rule. So at the moment we apply AACR2 and overlay it with DCRMB when, and only when, rare materials have a special need not covered by AACR2. In the future we will follow the same principle with RDA. We will apply RDA in general, and only apply rare rules (DCRMB presumably, but perhaps a future iteration) when rare materials have a special need not covered by RDA.
So it isn't a matter of "following" DCRMB and not AACR2 (or RDA). We do not "pick one convention and more or less stick to it." We are using both. This is exactly how the specialist rules are intended to work. We heard over and over during the development of RDA that specialist communities would need to create "extensions" of RDA for their own use because RDA wasn't going to drill that deeply. The rare cataloging specialist community has created such an extension, DCRMB.
So we need to code our records to show that we are following both DCRMB AND AACR2 (or RDA). We are able to do that now since we can code for AACR2 in the fixed field and for DCRMB in 040. With the proposed new coding we will not be able to do that under RDA unless subfield e is made repeatable.
Robert L. Maxwell
Special Collections and Ancient Languages Catalog Librarian
Genre/Form Authorities Librarian
6728 Harold B. Lee Library
Brigham Young University
Provo, UT 84602
From: MARC [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of John Hostage
Sent: Tuesday, February 02, 2010 6:02 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: 040 subfield e
How useful would that information be in either case? If you have a record that uses more than one convention, wouldn't you have to know which elements follow which convention? Otherwise, the information that more than one convention was used is not very helpful. Shouldn't a cataloger choose a convention to follow and more or less stick to it? There will always be extensions and variations, as there always have been.
But if we must use multiple codes, it seems better to make the subfield repeatable than to create an endless series of combination codes.
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)
From: MARC on behalf of Culbertson, Rebecca
Sent: Mon 2010-02-01 18:54
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: 040 subfield e
At the present time the 040 subfield "e" is not repeatable. Therefore
what is likely to happen when more than one description convention needs
to be used--e.g., both "rda" and "dcrmb" are applicable?
Is it more likely that the subfield will become repeatable? Or that
there will need to be another convention, such as "dcrmbrda"
Shared Cataloging Program
California Digital Library
Metadata Services Department
University of California, San Diego
La Jolla, California 92093-0175
(858) 822-6415 (Phone)
(858) 822-0349 (Fax)
"If at first you don't succeed, change the rules"