Karen Coyle wrote:

Quoting "Myers, John F.":
> Regardless of the mechanism for the resulting communication format,  
> I think there is a need to address the larger issues of:
> * transcribed vs. controlled data,

What do you see as the issue?

[supra text from Karen]:
For each element, we really need to look at what its purpose is in the catalog. Here's an example of something that might be a surprise to some people:

245 with filing indicators: This is really two different data elements
- a transcription of the title from the title page, and a title, sans initial articles, that is needed for sorting.


In hopes to keep this reply brief (!), I'll address just a snippet, with several examples:  

* Your example from the 245
* Analogous issues (using a different solution) with the handling of Series statements and Series access points
* The ongoing conversations on this list and elsewhere about the form and use of Place of publication data
* Publisher name has largely gone unaddressed in these forums but presents a similar issue, possibly more for descriptive rules than communication format
* The need to record dates as found for transcription/identification but consistently format them for sorting/limiting
* Tension in managing the transcription of Statement of responsibility data and the generation of corresponding controlled access points (despite my ill-advised attempt to use XML to articulate the question)

All of these have had different approaches applied in MARC, from the use of indicators to the development of separate controlled fields to the use of fixed field coding.  Rather than some cobbled together collection of tools created on an ad hoc basis, a comprehensive examination of potential solutions (in and beyond MARC) along with a clear articulation of the circumstances to which each might best be applied (or selection of a uniform solution?) would be welcome.  

John F. Myers, Catalog Librarian
Schaffer Library, Union College
807 Union St.
Schenectady NY 12308

[log in to unmask]