Print

Print


Dear Joachim:

This is an oversight in the MARC to MODS mapping and stylesheet based on it, not a change proposal for MODS itself. The mapping should map 648 to <subject><temporal>. We will correct both these documents. 
It is the case that we included it (i.e. 148) in the MADS mapping as mads:authority/temporal. So certainly it should be in MODS.

Rebecca

Rebecca S. Guenther                                                       
 Senior Networking and Standards Specialist                  
 Network Development and MARC Standards Office     
 Library of Congress   
 101 Independence Ave. SE                                       
 Washington, DC 20540                                                      
 Washington, DC 20540-4402                                          
 (202) 707-5092 (voice)    (202) 707-0115 (FAX)           
 [log in to unmask]

>>> Neubert Joachim <[log in to unmask]> 3/12/2009 2:15 PM >>>
Up to now, MARC 648 (Subject Added Entry-Chronological Term) seems not
to be mapped to MODS. The MARCXML entry 
 
  <datafield tag="648" ind1=" " ind2="4">
    <subfield code="a">1974-1993</subfield>
  </datafield>
 
gets transformed by MARC21slim2MODS3-3.xsl to
 
   ... </note>
    1974-1993
  <subject>...

which is invalid. Since this kind of entries is quite common in our data
(> 10% of the records), it would be great to have them in MODS too.
 
Cheers, Joachim
--
Joachim Neubert
IT Development
German National Library of Economics (ZBW)