Mark
Start and end dates for occupations and fields of activity (and
associated places) don't appear in the MARC to RDA mappings in the
Toolkit. I think you could map them to 9.17.1 (Biographical information)
and 11.11 (Corporate history). However, I agree with you that they
probably emanate from MARBI's desire to provide enhancements, and
consistency across fields.
I mentioned 9.3.1.3 to illustrate that when RDA does specify dates, it
doesn't give them to ISO 8601, so for example we have "1936 December
17", not "19361217". Similarly in 11.4.2.3. So it's MARC 21 that
indicates the use of coded dates in 046, as an exception (much as MARC
21 language codes are used in 377, when RDA says nothing about them).
In our RDA NARs we have only used uncoded dates in 3XX $s and $t. I did
discuss with an LC colleague, whether we would use ISO or edtf here, and
we thought that we wouldn't. Nor have we been more specific than the
year, and I haven't noticed any other practice in LC/NAF (for example, I
just searched for the names of all the months in 372 and 374 fields, and
didn't find any).
Regards
Richard
_________________________
Richard Moore
Authority Control Team Manager
The British Library
Tel.: +44 (0)1937 546806
E-mail: [log in to unmask]
-----Original Message-----
From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Mark Ehlert
Sent: 01 August 2012 15:58
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] 37x $s and $t dates
I wrote:
>>True. And I just came across a questionable-date format in an example
> under the 375 $s on the MARC21 site.
>
> <http://www.loc.gov/marc/authority/ad375.html>
>
>>But I don't want to rely on a single example as support for applying
> EDTF date formats
Richard Moore responded:
> That's not an example of an EDTF date format. It's an example of the
> way RDA indicates that uncertain dates should be recorded (e.g. in
9.3.1.3).
I read RDA 9.3.1.3 <http://access.rdatoolkit.org/9.3.1.3.html> as
applying only to those dates applicable to the elements under 9.3, and
any date formatting instructions in RDA as applying to those
instructions found within the context of the RDA text. For instance,
nowhere in RDA is there instruction, explicit or implicit, that the
Profession or Occupation element (9.16) be further enhanced
(optionally?) with dates that provide the time period in which a person
had a job or was otherwise occupied in a particular field. We may, of
course, spell this out in the Biographical Information element
(9.17) or the Source Consulted element (8.12), both mapped to different
MARC fields. Date of Usage (8.9) is limited to the preferred name.
I did a little poking around the MARC site and I found this in
Discussion Paper 2008-DP05/2
<http://www.loc.gov/marc/marbi/2008/2008-dp05-2.html>:
"3.2.2. Period of activity
RDA includes elements for period of activity (start) and period of
activity (end).[!!] To include specifically in MARC, the same options
are available as with birth and death dates: either define a new field
for period of activity or define a new field to accommodate additional
dates with one or two subfields for period of activity (depending upon
whether you parse the start and end into two subfields or encode as a
range in one subfield)."
(These elements must have existed before the November 2008 draft of
RDA.)
Proposal 2009-01/1 codifies the dating qualification for Field of
Activity and other fields with the supportive statement that
characteristics of an entity may change over time. Otherwise, there's
no RDA source I came across that specifies the application of these
dates for 37x elements.
Ultimately, the 37x $s and $t subfields strike me as a MARC layer we
apply on top of the RDA information in our authority records. I'm
seeking the MARC instructions/NACO policies that tell me what kind of
date formatting is allowed or required for the subfields in question.
For the time being, I'm following the approach you mention in another
post in this thread:
1.) use both known and fuzzy dates in the 046 for those RDA elements
that are mapped to that field
2.) stick with known dates in the 37x $s and $t and give fuzzy dates in
the 670/678s until I hear of a policy set down by the higher ups in NACO
> ISO 8601 and edtf dates are only recorded in 046. Part of the problem
> is that there would be no way to indicate what date standard you are
> using in 37X.
I wouldn't mind getting that resolved if we catalogers find it necessary
to spell out what standard we're using in these $s and $t subfields.
--
Mark K. Ehlert Minitex
Coordinator University of Minnesota
Digitization, Cataloging & 15 Andersen Library
Metadata Education (DCME) 222 21st Avenue South
Phone: 612-624-0805 Minneapolis, MN 55455-0439
<http://www.minitex.umn.edu/>
**************************************************************************
Experience the British Library online at http://www.bl.uk/
The British Library’s new interactive Annual Report and Accounts 2010/11 : http://www.bl.uk/annualreport2010-11http://www.bl.uk/knowledge
Help the British Library conserve the world's knowledge. Adopt a Book. http://www.bl.uk/adoptabook
The Library's St Pancras site is WiFi - enabled
*************************************************************************
The information contained in this e-mail is confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended for the addressee(s) only. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete this e-mail and notify the mailto:[log in to unmask] : The contents of this e-mail must not be disclosed or copied without the sender's consent.
The statements and opinions expressed in this message are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the British Library. The British Library does not take any responsibility for the views of the author.
*************************************************************************
Think before you print
|