I'd like to point out that the association of AACR area 3 data with
the 251-258 block in MARC 21 isn't very good.

Area 3 exists in ch.3 (cartographic) (note this is 2 distinct uses),
ch.5 (music), ch.9 (electronic) and ch.12 (serials). The associated
fields are:
255 for Cartographic Matematical Data,
352 for Digital Graphic Representation
254 for Musical Presentation Statement
256 for Computer File Characteristics
362 for Dates of publication/or sequential designation

Area 3 is by definition a collecting ground for important but
disparate information, and the subelements in each area 3 are totally
different. As a result, the MARC21 subfields and indicators in these
5 fields are all different, and it would make validation
unnecessarily complex to combine the fields.

Also, MARC21 field 257 (Country of producing entity for archival
films), is just not an AACR area 3 data element.


On 13 Dec 2003 at 11:26, J. McRee Elrod wrote:

> MARBI proposal 2004-04: Definition of Field 258 (Philatelic Issue Data)
> in MARC21 is online at:
> <>
> Perhaps the greatest failure of MARC21 in creating coding for ISBDs is
> not assigning a single code for the Material (or Type of Publication)
> Specific Area, but rather a different code for each type of material.
> Here is yet another proposal for a number between edition (250) and
> imprint (260) for a type of resource specific information, in this case
> data concerning philatelic material.  The need for this non
> transcribed information is clear.  This placement in the material
> specific area is certainly in keeping with the letter and spirit of the
> ISBD(G) and MARC structure.  The proposed use of subfields
> ($ajurisdiction, $bdenomination) is well designed.
> There is however a finite number of fields between 250 and 260, and
> infinite possible types of resources potentially needing that area.
> Would this not be the occasion to assign a single code for type of
> material information (251, 252, 253 remain unused as well as 258 and
> 259).  The information to be entered in subfields could be determined by
> an LDR value, as are the values for positions in 008.  The field could
> be repeating in case of more than one type of material in a single
> bibliographic item. Indicators could distinguish among content, carrier,
> and constituent part.
> Just as 260 and the former 261 have been combined in 260, 254-257
> and the proposed 258 could be combined in 255 (251, 252, or 253 if
> an unused number is preferred).
>    __       __   J. McRee (Mac) Elrod ([log in to unmask])
>   {__  |   /     Special Libraries Cataloguing   HTTP://
>   ___} |__ \__________________________________________________________