[Excuse the duplication: I'm sending to PCC, CONSER, and BIBCO lists.]
Dear PCC colleagues,
I'm writing because Dave Reser and I just realized that we've not been catching incorrect input of the 375 field in AACR2 and RDA records since last October.
A subfield $2 of "iso5218" can only be used if you are giving subfield $a according to that standard; that standard uses numeric values instead of words. So, 375 fields with words in subfield $a are not correct:
375 $a male $2 iso5218
375 $a female $2 iso5218
We can find the NARs containing field 375 and I'm already starting to delete any $2 info in those records. I'm just asking you to ensure that you are inputting this field correctly in the future.
We confirmed that the NAR examples on the US RDA Test site are correct. We're checking other documentation to see where we may have given the incorrect information. We did include the field in this form in the original test-of-fields records for the NACO nodes (we were just putting "stuff" in subfields without checking exactly how to record that content because the point was to confirm that the nodes could exchange records with those fields, not what the content of the fields happened to be).
Let me know if you have questions.