 |
 |
Hello all, After reviewing the new edition of the RLG EAD guidelines, I've been reconsidering a decision I made when planning how our <controlaccess> fields should be encoded. The RLG guidelines, like many I looked at when coming up with our template, recommend encoding 651 MARC fields as <geogname> elements in the high-level <controlaccess>, but I feel that in most situations <subject> is more appropriate. I may be splitting hairs, but I have reservations about encoding 651 fields in <geogname>. As the tag library states, <geogname> encodes "the proper noun designation for a place..." If the value of a 651 field was simply "United States," I would encode it in <geogname>, but it is very rare that our MARC records would have such a general 651 field. In the case of "United States |x History |y Civil War, 1861-1865 |x Personal narrative." isn't that more accurately called a subject? Does anyone consider it bad EAD form to encode 651 fields as <subject encodinganalog="651">United States--History--Civil War, 1861-1865--Personal narratives.</subject>, rather than as <geogname encodinganalog="651">United States--History--Civil War, 1861-1865--Personal narratives.</geogname> ? Thanks for the feedback, Mike ____________________________________ Michael Rush - Manuscript Processor Massachusetts Historical Society [log in to unmask] - (617)646-0553