Print

Print


And I would choose 381 with $2, because that is the actual RDA element that is being used as a qualifier.

Adam Schiff
University of Washington Libraries
[log in to unmask]

On Mon, 20 Oct 2014, Robert Maxwell wrote:

> Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2014 14:21:41 +0000
> From: Robert Maxwell <[log in to unmask]>
> Reply-To: Program for Cooperative Cataloging <[log in to unmask]>
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Other Distinguishing Characteristics and the 373 field
> 
> I favor coding corporate bodies in 373 (“associated group”) because that’s where the machine (and humans) will expect to find corporate bodies recorded—373 is the standardized place to find a related corporate body; 381 is a grab bag where you can expect to find just about anything, which is not helpful if there actually is a standardized field for a particular entity (like corporate body).
>
> Bob
>
> Robert L. Maxwell
> Ancient Languages and Special Collections Cataloger
> 6728 Harold B. Lee Library
> Brigham Young University
> Provo, UT 84602
> (801)422-5568
>
> "We should set an example for all the world, rather than confine ourselves to the course which has been heretofore pursued"--Eliza R. Snow, 1842.
>
> From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Mark K. Ehlert
> Sent: Sunday, October 19, 2014 3:15 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Other Distinguishing Characteristics and the 373 field
>
> Skimming the NACO PowerPoint files here:
> <http://www.loc.gov/catworkshop/courses/naco-RDA/index.html>
> I came across the following instruction: if the material for the "Other Distinguishing Characteristic of the Work" (RDA 6.6) and "...Expression" (RDA 6.12) is a corporate body, record that body in the 373 field, not the 381.  (See "Describing Works and Expressions," slides #68, 70, and 90.)  I don't recall encountering this directive before.  To illustrate using an example from the MARC site:
>
> 130 #0 $a Research paper (South African Law Commission)
> 381 ## $a South African Law Commission $2 naf
>  - vs. -
> 130 #0 $a Research paper (South African Law Commission)
> 373 ## $a South African Law Commission $2 naf
>
> What's the reasoning behind this?  The semantics of both RDA elements line up with the 381 (<http://www.loc.gov/marc/authority/ad381.html>); the field also employs a $2 like the 373 (<http://www.loc.gov/marc/authority/ad373.html>).  Is the source vocabulary for the $2 the issue?  The 381 $2 points to the subject code list (which includes the NAF) and the 373 $2 to the name and title code list (which also includes the NAF).  The DCM Z1 and LC MARC Supplement are silent on the matter as far as I can tell; the same for the "MARC 21 Encoding to Accommodate..." cheat sheet (<http://www.loc.gov/aba/pcc/naco/index.html>) updated earlier this year.
>
> Thanks,
> Mark
>
> --
> Mark K. Ehlert                 Minitex
> Coordinator                    University of Minnesota
> Digitization, Cataloging &     15 Andersen Library
>  Metadata Education (DCME)    222 21st Avenue South
> Phone: 612-624-0805            Minneapolis, MN 55455-0439
> <http://www.minitex.umn.edu/>
>
>  "Experience is by industry achieved // And perfected by
> the swift course of time." -- Shakespeare, "Two Gentlemen
> of Verona," Act I, scene iii
>
>

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Adam L. Schiff
Principal Cataloger
University of Washington Libraries
Box 352900
Seattle, WA 98195-2900
(206) 543-8409
(206) 685-8782 fax
[log in to unmask]
http://faculty.washington.edu/~aschiff
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~