Print

Print


Yes, a field must be used before anyone will pay any attention to it.

A cautionary tale: Nine years ago, almost to the day, MARBI voted 7-0 to
pass the proposal for a new field[1]: 258 Philatelic Issue Data.  Now in
2013 I find exactly 8 records that have a 258 in the nearly 300 million
record WorldCat aggregation. Eight.

Now how was MARBI to know that nine years later no one would care about the
258? They couldnąt, really, they just had to judge the proposal in front of
them. But if we are going to chart a way forward it must be with full
knowledge of where we may have gone astray in the past.
Roy 

[1] http://www.loc.gov/marc/marbi/minutes/mw-04.html

On 1/18/13 1/18/13 € 12:38 PM, "Godsey-Bell, Connie F. (LNG-DAY)"
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Thanks, Karen.   I see what you mean.  The less a field is used, the less
> useful it becomes, which means the less it is used. J   I hope this changes
> with RDA!
>  
> Connie
>  
> 
> From: Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Karen Coyle
> Sent: Friday, January 18, 2013 3:20 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [BIBFRAME] Input screens
>  
> In the US, which follows Library of Congress practice pretty carefully, LC
> opted to no longer provide those subfields in its data some decades back
> (someone here will know the exact date), and so their usage dropped off. If
> they aren't in many of the records then it is hard to do something sensible
> with them in terms of indexing and display in systems, and so there is less
> incentive to add them to the records.... and around it goes. I believe that
> the intention with RDA is to re-recognize this information as important and
> make use of it in the future.
> 
> kc
> 
> On 1/18/13 12:14 PM, Tennant,Roy wrote:
>> Others on this list are much more qualified to speculate than I. I am merely
>> reporting the facts łon the ground˛. Having said that, please keep in mind
>> that WorldCat is increasingly a world-wide aggregation of library metadata,
>> and as such it reflects a diversity of cataloging practices, not just those
>> dictated by AACR2.
>> Roy
>> 
>> 
>> On 1/18/13 1/18/13 € 11:26 AM, "Godsey-Bell, Connie F. (LNG-DAY)"
>> <[log in to unmask]>
>> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>  wrote:
>> Thanks Roy.   Those are really small percentages.   Why so small?   Is the
>> information not available?   Do the editors who input the data not have time
>> to add it?  Iąm brand new to the MARC world, so am not familiar with its
>> culture and challenges.
>>  
>> Connie
>>  
>> 
>> From: Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum
>> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Tennant,Roy
>> Sent: Friday, January 18, 2013 2:13 PM
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: Re: [BIBFRAME] Input screens
>> 
>> Let me do this again (from scratch, even). The following are the number of
>> records that have the listed elements, out of 289,294,984 records processed,
>> as of 1 January 2013 in WorldCat:
>> 
>> 700 $4: 14,229,291 or 4.92% of the total
>> 700 $e: 9,904,536 or 3.42% of the total
>> 
>> Roy 
>> 
>> On 1/18/13 1/18/13 € 10:33 AM, "Ross Singer" <[log in to unmask]>
>> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>  wrote:
>> On Jan 18, 2013, at 1:11 PM, "Godsey-Bell, Connie F. (LNG-DAY)"
>> <[log in to unmask]>
>> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>  wrote:
>> Hi,
>> What percent of the total do the total occurrences represent?
>> 
>> And what number of unique records have a 700 with a $4 or an $e?
>> 
>> -Ross.
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> Connie Godsey-Bell,
>> Editor
>> LexisNexis
>>  
>> From: Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum
>> [mailto:[log in to unmask] <http://LISTSERV.LOC.GOV> ] On Behalf Of
>> Tennant,Roy
>> Sent: Friday, January 18, 2013 12:42 PM
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: Re: [BIBFRAME] Input screens
>> 
>> On 1/18/13 1/18/13 € 9:24 AM, "Ross Singer" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> How often, on aggregate, is the 100 or 700 $4 or $e used?  Since I've parsed
>> a lot of MARC records, I can tell you.  Not much (and the inconsistency of
>> the $e makes this even less useful).
>> 
>> I can tell you exactly, as of December 1, 2012 in WorldCat:
>> 
>> Total number of records: 287,229,344
>> Total occurrences of a 700 field: 80,731,356
>> Total occurrences of 700 $4: 24,908,408
>> Total occurrences of a 700 $e: 14,117,538
>> 
>> Roy
>> 
>> 
>>