I have found that such examples in the MARC documentation are not always well thought-out.  The subfield $2 seems to indicate in some cases “some or all of this field was done in the spirit of RDA”. J

I agree that it would make sense to break up the 344 into two fields.


In the case of 347 $e, if this were really a “code” for regional encoding, it would be sufficient to record “4”.  MARC continues to be more about text than data.



John Hostage

Senior Continuing Resources Cataloger //

Harvard Library--Information and Technical Services //

Langdell Hall 194 //

Cambridge, MA 02138

[log in to unmask]

+(1)(617) 495-3974 (voice)

+(1)(617) 496-4409 (fax)


From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Mark K. Ehlert
Sent: Monday, October 13, 2014 16:22
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] $2 rda in 344


Adam L. Schiff <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

The MARC format (and OCLC Bib. Formats document) includes this example in field 344:

344 ## $a digital $b optical $g surround $h Dolby Digital 5.1 $2 rda


Adam''s example comes from here (look under the $b item):


I think this has come up in discussion before, but can $2 rda be used in the 3XX fields if a term recorded does not come from a list in RDA? That is, since Dolby Digital 5.1 is not on the list in, is it correct to include $2 in the 344?  If not correct, should one 344 be used with no $2, or should two 344s be used as follows:

344 ## $a digital $b optical $g surround $2 rda
344 ## $h Dolby Digital 5.1


This follows my approach. The $2 is defined as the source for a list of controlled terms, to which I also include controlled units of measurement (ips, cm, MB).  Plenty of both in RDA.  Just recording something from the piece in hand, which this example might demonstrate, runs against the $2.

(Someone with more audio cataloging experience might address this option--and correct me if I'm wrong: use "Dolby" alone in the 344 $h with the $2 rda, and consider "Dolby Digital 5.1" the "Details on..." comment posted elsewhere in the MARC record.)

While on this topic, also look at the example under 347 $e.  Though "region 4" is certainly based on RDA's instructions--that's what the 040 $e rda is for--the term itself doesn't come from any controlled list under RDA 3.19.6.  Nor is it based on any controlled labeling structure, like "# region."  I'd rewrite that example as:

347 ## $a video file $b DVD video $2 rda

347 ## $e region 4