LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for MARC Archives


MARC Archives

MARC Archives


MARC@LISTSERV.LOC.GOV


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

MARC Home

MARC Home

MARC  December 2019

MARC December 2019

Subject:

Re: FW: Identifiers in 3XX with multiple subfields $a

From:

Linda Jansova <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

MARC <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Sat, 14 Dec 2019 06:58:34 +0100

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (186 lines)

Dear Adam,

Thank you for pointing this out!

When re-reading the MARC specs wording together with the PCC task group 
report you have mentioned, I can see that there is certainly a way :-). 
Splitting the data into two or more fields with each having a particular 
identifier seems to be a good option! It is also basically the only 
reasonable way to make sure that the identifier remains linked to the 
right concept in the subfield (in our case in $a) and nothing gets mixed up.

Thank you once again!

Linda

On 12/14/19 1:36 AM, Jansová Linda wrote:
>
>
> ________________________________________
> From: Adam L Schiff
> Sent: Saturday, December 14, 2019 1:32:07 AM (UTC+01:00) Belgrade, Bratislava, Budapest, Ljubljana, Prague
> To: MARC
> Cc: Jansová Linda
> Subject: RE: Identifiers in 3XX with multiple subfields $a
>
> Ms. Jansova,
>
> I believe that you are reading too much into what the MARC format says.
>
> You wrote:
>
> "This sample record also shows that it is common to have more occurrences of subfield "a" (which is correct as the subfield is repeatable). It also follows the MARC 21 specification which says a repeated field should only be added when different time periods are concerned, e.g.:
>
> 'The field is repeated if the entity has multiple fields of activity for different time periods.' (http://www.loc.gov/marc/authority/ad372.html)
>
> 'The field is repeated if the person has multiple occupations for different time periods.' (http://www.loc.gov/marc/authority/ad374.html)"
>
> I don't believe that MARC is saying that the field should ONLY be repeated when different time periods are concerned.  I think a better interpretation is that the field MUST be repeated if different time periods are concerned and if those time periods are coded in $s/$t.  The format does not forbid you from repeating a field for other reasons.
>
> If you look at the PCC Task Group on Linked Data Best Practices: final report (https://www.loc.gov/aba/pcc/taskgroup/linked-data-best-practices-final-report.pdf), it recommends repeating 3XX fields when including URIs in those fields.  For example see page 5:
>
> This is OK because the subfields are the same:
>
> 380 ## $a Novels $a Thrillers (Fiction) $2 lcgft $0 http://id.loc.gov/authorities/genreForms/gf2015026020 $0 http://id.loc.gov/authorities/genreForms/gf2014026571
>
> But this is NOT OK, because the subfields are different, and there is no way to associate the $0s with the appropriate other subfield:
>
> 370 ## $c United States $g Paris (France) $2 naf $0 http://id.loc.gov/authorities/names/n78095330 $0 http://id.loc.gov/authorities/names/n79058874
>
> For this latter case, the recommended practice is to repeat the field:
>
> 370 ## $c United States $2 naf $0 http://id.loc.gov/authorities/names/n78095330
> 370 ## $g Paris (France) $2 naf $0 http://id.loc.gov/authorities/names/n79058874
>
> Based on the recommendations in PCC report, either of these would be acceptable:
>
> 372 ## $a Civil engineering $a Environmental engineering $2 lcsh $0 http://id.loc.gov/authorities/subjects/sh85026331 $0 http://id.loc.gov/authorities/subjects/sh85044170
>     or
> 372 ## $a Civil engineering $2 lcsh $0 http://id.loc.gov/authorities/subjects/sh85026331
> 372 ## $a Environmental engineering $2 lcsh $0 $0 http://id.loc.gov/authorities/subjects/sh85044170
>
> If you always wanted to get it right, the simplest thing is to always repeat the 3XX with just a single controlled term per field.
>
> Adam L. Schiff
> Principal Cataloger
> University of Washington Libraries
> [log in to unmask]
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Date:    Thu, 12 Dec 2019 09:22:28 +0100
> From:    Linda Jansova <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Identifiers in 3XX fields with more subfields a (in MARC 21 authority records)
>
> Dear list members,
>
> As we are in the process of improving our authority records so that they become more usable in the semantic web environment, we have come across the following issue related to authority record identifiers.
>
> Since the introduction of the RDA (in our country we started using the RDA back in 2015), new 3XX fields such as 372 or 374 have been present in our records. To fill these fields in, headings from other authority records are used. However, so far the particular record identifier is not included in the field.
>
> An example of such a record:
>
> https://aleph.nkp.cz/F/?func=direct&doc_number=000002398&local_base=AUT
>
> And sample 3XX fields from the record:
>
> 372 |a malířství |a grafika |a karikatury |a ilustrace |a kreslený film
>
> 374 |a malíři |a grafici |a karikaturisté |a ilustrátoři
>
> So for example a heading "malířství" is used but its identifier ph122599 (representing this record:
> https://aleph.nkp.cz/F/?func=direct&doc_number=000122599&local_base=AUT)
> is not included in the field.
>
> This sample record also shows that it is common to have more occurrences of subfield "a" (which is correct as the subfield is repeatable). It also follows the MARC 21 specification which says a repeated field should only be added when different time periods are concerned, e.g.:
>
> "The field is repeated if the entity has multiple fields of activity for different time periods." (http://www.loc.gov/marc/authority/ad372.html)
>
> "The field is repeated if the person has multiple occupations for different time periods." (http://www.loc.gov/marc/authority/ad374.html)
>
> But a number of people work in more than one professional area simultaneously. In that case it seems a single field with multiple subfields „a“ should be used. Although the MARC 21 specification lets us use various IDs in other subfields, in case where more subfields „a“ are used, it would not be clear which ID belongs to which particular subfield „a“ occurence.
>
> --
>
> If we take a look at the LC authority record for the same person (http://id.loc.gov/authorities/names/n80164640), we can see that no identifiers (identifying „Artists“ record rather than the LCSH as a
> whole) are used:
>
> <marcxml:datafield tag="374" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
>
> <marcxml:subfield code="a">Artists</marcxml:subfield>
>
> <marcxml:subfield code="2">lcsh</marcxml:subfield>
>
> </marcxml:datafield>
>
>
> The German National Library (http://d-nb.info/gnd/118513591) seems to use more 550 fields fields which enables having more occurrences of the field for multiple occupations. This approach makes it possible to set a clear link between a label (e.g., Maler) and any IDs (in 0s):
>
> <datafield tag="550" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
>
> <subfield code="0">(DE-101)040372154</subfield>
>
> <subfield code="0">(DE-588)4037215-7</subfield>
>
> <subfield code="0">https://d-nb.info/gnd/4037215-7</subfield>
>
> <subfield code="a">Maler</subfield>
>
> <subfield code="4">beru</subfield>
>
> <subfield code="4">
>
> https://d-nb.info/standards/elementset/gnd#professionOrOccupation
>
> </subfield>
>
> <subfield code="w">r</subfield>
>
> <subfield code="i">Beruf</subfield>
>
> </datafield>
>
>
> <datafield tag="550" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
>
> <subfield code="0">(DE-101)04232470X</subfield>
>
> <subfield code="0">(DE-588)4232470-1</subfield>
>
> <subfield code="0">https://d-nb.info/gnd/4232470-1</subfield>
>
> <subfield code="a">Karikaturist</subfield>
>
> <subfield code="4">beru</subfield>
>
> <subfield code="4">
>
> https://d-nb.info/standards/elementset/gnd#professionOrOccupation
>
> </subfield>
>
> <subfield code="w">r</subfield>
>
> <subfield code="i">Beruf</subfield>
>
> </datafield>
>
> --
>
> Therefore the question is:
>
> How to proceed if we wish to include the identifiers along with the semantics of the 3XX fields?
>
> Any ideas?
>
> Could it possibly be one of the issues that the MARC/RDA Working Group
> (https://www.loc.gov/marc/mac/MARC-RDA_Working_Group.html) is going to examine?
>
> Thank you in advance for sharing your views!
>
> Linda Jansova
>
> National Library of the Czech Republic
> [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

November 2022
October 2022
September 2022
August 2022
July 2022
June 2022
May 2022
April 2022
March 2022
February 2022
January 2022
December 2021
November 2021
October 2021
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
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 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
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
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
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 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
September 1997
August 1997
July 1997
June 1997
May 1997
April 1997
March 1997
February 1997
January 1997
December 1996
November 1996
October 1996
September 1996
August 1996
July 1996
June 1996
May 1996
April 1996
March 1996
February 1996
January 1996

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.LOC.GOV

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager