040 subfield $e is being made repeatable as part of MARC Update no. 11.
Please see the section titled "Miscellaneous other changes to MARC for
RDA" in the document "RDA in MARC" available at:
Metadata Development Officer
The British Library
Boston Spa, Wetherby
West Yorkshire LS23 7BQ
e-mail: [log in to unmask]
From: MARC [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Seanna S W Tsung
Sent: 2010-02-02 21:05
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [MARC] 040 subfield e
The topic came up at the RBMS meeting at ALA in Boston. Currently, the
Descriptive Cataloging of Rare Materials suite is AACR2 based, but
if/when the DCRM modules are RDA based or at least RDA compliant, it
would be desirable to indicate that a record used the revised rules.
That is, the record would be following one convention (dcrmb, for
example) as revised, not dcrmb in some fields and rda in others. If, as
we understand it, RDA will be coded in the 040 and not in the leader, as
AACR2 is now, making the 040 field repeatable will allow the same level
of information currently appearing in dcrmb/dcrms records.
Senior cataloging specialist
Geography & Map Division
Library of Congress
[log in to unmask]
>>> John Hostage <[log in to unmask]> 2/2/2010 8:02 AM >>>
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
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"