Can't both 373 and 381 serve to express a qualifying term as a separate element? RDA wants qualifying terms to be expressed as separate elements, not for them to be expressed specifically in a 381.  I agree with Bob--using 373 provides both the separate element and richer semantic categorization, so I'd prefer it in this case.  I'd reserve 381 for terms which don't have a more precise encoding.


On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 10:37 AM, Adam L. Schiff <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
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).


Robert L. Maxwell
Ancient Languages and Special Collections Cataloger
6728 Harold B. Lee Library
Brigham Young University
Provo, UT 84602

"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]gov] 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:
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 (<>); the field also employs a $2 like the 373 (<>).  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 (<>) updated earlier this year.


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

 "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]

Stephen Hearn, Metadata Strategist
Data Management & Access, University Libraries
University of Minnesota
160 Wilson Library
309 19th Avenue South
Minneapolis, MN 55455
Ph: 612-625-2328
Fx: 612-625-3428
ORCID:  0000-0002-3590-1242