LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for PCCLIST Archives


PCCLIST Archives

PCCLIST Archives


PCCLIST@LISTSERV.LOC.GOV


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Monospaced Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

PCCLIST Home

PCCLIST Home

PCCLIST  October 2014

PCCLIST October 2014

Subject:

MARC fields doing double duty - a case

From:

Ian Fairclough <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Program for Cooperative Cataloging <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Fri, 17 Oct 2014 15:08:35 +0000

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (1 lines)

Dear PCCLIST readers,

Stephen Hearn wrote: "Returning to the question of doing double duty--when a 240 is present, the 1XX is both the lead term for a name/title authorized access point and the creator entry for the resource named in the 245. Does the prohibition on using relator tems or codes after a name in work or expression AAPs apply to 1XXs followed by both 240 and 245?"

This point lay behind the example I gave, which was
70012Lee, Laurie, ǂe artist, ǂe author. ǂt Works. ǂk Selections.
in response to which Manon Théroux kindly directed us to "PCC Guidelines for the Application of Relationship Designators in Bibliographic Records" (available via LC-PCC PS for I.1, but not seen here http://www.loc.gov/aba/pcc/bibco/index.html) in which is stated that relationship designators should not be used in that context.

I should have said that the example I gave was intended to illustrate a possible practice that is not actually done, a "straw man" so to speak. Some readers, however, might have noticed, as Stephen did, the analogous situation with use of field 100 and a relator term in subfield e, followed by field 240. In such cases, field 100 is doing double duty. It was this analogy that the example was intended to provoke.

To parse out such a situation, two fields might result if 700 fields were created by an automated process:

AAP for the creator, plus a relationship designator
AAP for the creator, as a link, followed by the AAP for the expression

However, in order to avoid doublt duty the situation should really be three 700 fields:
AAP for the creator, plus a relationship designator
AAP for the creator, as a link, followed by the AAP for the work
AAP for the creator, as a link, followed by the AAP for the expression

In the example which provoked my earlier post (the book of drawings etc. by Lawrence ("Laurie") Lee, with main entry under his daughter for her extensive contribution), field 240 is not available for use, because the 100 field is being used for a *different* person. Therefore field 700 must be used instead.

Avoiding having MARC fields do double duty is a practice that has been increasingly implemented over the past several years. Field 440 did double duty, with the resulting problem (one of them) being that when the established form changed, for example by addition of a qualifier, a cataloger not fully conversant with the situation might simply add the qualifier in that field rather than changing it to a 490 and adding an 830 field - now the only practice available in MARC. The creation of field 264 probably resulted in a collective sigh of relief: it enabled separation of publication data from distribution and manufacturing data, and gave the copyright year a place of its very own.

In an earlier thread, with subject "Use of field 240", I gave a partial response to Pete Wilson's question "... why you want both a work AAP and an expression AAP in your bib record". Here's more:

(1) For instructional purposes. Acting on the assumption that people want to know about the work, the expression, and the relationship between them, catalogers can point out that relationship through how we do our job. Provision of separate fields, together with separate linked authority records documenting full information about both work and expression, can serve that purpose.

(2) To promote linked data. Linked data is already available to use via OCLC Connexion's controlled headings functionality. Perhaps other users can give examples of similar technology elsewhere.

(3) To use the MARC format in a way that will make it easier for those concerned with migration to a different format (whether BIBFRAME, or any other) to understand what is entailed. (Would you want your programmer to come up with the equivalent of my "straw man" illustration as above? I doubt it!)

Sincerely - Ian

Ian Fairclough
Cataloging and Metadata Services Librarian
George Mason University Libraries
[log in to unmask]

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 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
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 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
July 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
October 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
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 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

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.LOC.GOV

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager