Print

Print


If we're going to make this change (and I think it makes sense for the 
reasons already mentioned and also because the non-MARC world has been 
applying the w3cdtf standard), then let's roll it into the phase 3B 
project and get it over with.
Nancy

-- 
Nancy Sack
Cataloging Department
University of Hawaii at Manoa
2550 McCarthy Mall, Honolulu, HI 96822
phone: 808-956-2648
fax: 808-956-5968
e-mail: [log in to unmask]


On 4/13/2015 10:19 AM, Kevin M Randall wrote:
>
> Given this information, it doesn't seem that a proposal to change MARC 
> is needed at all, since MARC only says that ISO 8601 is used if 
> subfield $2 doesn't specify any other scheme.  All that is needed is a 
> PCC policy decision to use hyphens and $2 w3cdtf.
>
> I'm going to copy this post to Standing Committee on Standards.
>
> Kevin
>
> Kevin M. Randall
>
> Principal Serials Cataloger
>
> Northwestern University Library
>
> [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>
> (847) 491-2939
>
> Proudly wearing the sensible shoes since 1978!
>
> *From:*Program for Cooperative Cataloging 
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] *On Behalf Of *Policy and Standards 
> Division
> *Sent:* Monday, April 13, 2015 1:46 PM
> *To:* [log in to unmask]
> *Subject:* Re: [PCCLIST] Best practices in updating authority records
>
> The reason the LC-PCC PS for 9.3.1.3 and the DCM Z1 say to use 
> YYYYMMDD instead of YYYY-MM-DD is because that is what the MARC 21 
> Authority format says (see 
> http://www.loc.gov/marc/authority/ad046.html). If you look at the MARC 
> Date and Time Scheme Source Codes 
> (http://www.loc.gov/standards/sourcelist/date-time.html), you’ll see 
> that you can do YYYY-MM-DD if you use $2 w3cdtf.  See the W3C page 
> (http://www.w3.org/TR/NOTE-datetime) for more information about  their 
> profile of ISO 8601.  So in answer to Bob’s question about what it 
> would take to make this change, I think “a proposal to change MARC” is 
> the answer.  I am not saying this is a good idea or one which is 
> likely to succeed, but that is the answer.
>
> Kate James
>
> Policy and Standards Division
>
> Library of Congress
>
> *From:*Program for Cooperative Cataloging 
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] *On Behalf Of *John Hostage
> *Sent:* Monday, April 13, 2015 1:15 PM
> *To:* [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> *Subject:* Re: [PCCLIST] Best practices in updating authority records
>
> I agree that it would be simpler to always use the hyphens.  ISO 8601 
> defines two formats for dates in section 4.1.2.2: basic format 
> (YYYYMMDD) and extended format (YYYY-MM-DD).  Both seem to be equally 
> valid.  For “representations with reduced accuracy”, the only 
> applicable format for a specific month is YYYY-MM.  I’m pretty sure 
> the reason is that an earlier version of ISO 8601 allowed dates in the 
> format YYMMDD, and a six-digit date without hyphens would therefore be 
> ambiguous. (181111 could mean Nov. 11, 1918 (or 2018, etc.), or Nov. 
> 1811.)
>
> If we always used hyphens, it would not only be easier to remember and 
> read, but dates would always be compatible with EDTF.
>
> ------------------------------------------
>
> John Hostage
>
> Senior Continuing Resources Cataloger //
>
> Harvard Library--Information and Technical Services //
>
> Langdell Hall 194 //
>
> Cambridge, MA 02138
>
> [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>
> +(1)(617) 495-3974 (voice)
>
> +(1)(617) 496-4409 (fax)
>
> ISNI 0000 0000 4028 0917
>
> *From:*Program for Cooperative Cataloging 
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] *On Behalf Of *Gary L Strawn
> *Sent:* Monday, April 13, 2015 11:51
> *To:* [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> *Subject:* Re: [PCCLIST] Best practices in updating authority records
>
> My memory (I have the standard lying around here somewhere but I can't 
> find it just now) is that the ISO standard allows for year-month-day 
> dates to be recorded either with or without hyphens, and it's simply 
> NACO practice to omit the hyphens unless EDTF is in play. It would 
> certainly be easier on everyone if hyphens were used all the time; 
> then we wouldn't have to remember when to use them and when not.
>
> Gary L. Strawn, Authorities Librarian, etc. Twitter: GaryLStrawn
>
> Northwestern University Library, 1970 Campus Drive, Evanston IL 60208-2300
>
> e-mail: [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]> 
> voice: 847/491-2788   fax: 847/491-8306
>
> Forsan et haec olim meminisse iuvabit.       BatchCat version: 2008.22.409
>
> *From:*Program for Cooperative Cataloging 
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] *On Behalf Of *Deborah J. Leslie
> *Sent:* Monday, April 13, 2015 10:36 AM
> *To:* [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> *Subject:* Re: [PCCLIST] Best practices in updating authority records
>
> Gary,
>
> Thanks for these appropriately curmudgeonly exhortations. I especially 
> commend your advocacy of copy-and-paste, and looking at the actual 
> authority instead of acting on a list of search results alone.
>
> At the Folger, we have created in Connexion a number of local constant 
> data records for the 3xx fields, focusing on recurring individual 
> attributes and clusters of attributes. For example, if I am creating a 
> NAR for a printer, I invoke the CD "printer" which inserts appropriate 
> fields. I don't need to remember which field contains gender or 
> language: typing ctrl-b and 'male' or 'eng' inserts the fields 
> properly tagged and formatted. It's taken a long time to set up, but 
> we believe it will easily pay off.
>
> General question about the form of calendar dates in the 046. I do not 
> have direct access to ISO 8601, but everything I read about 
> formulating calendar dates--with the exception of LC-PCC PS 
> 9.3.1.3--states that year-month-day is to be represented yyyy-mm-dd, 
> that is, with the hyphens 
> (http://www.iso.org/iso/home/standards/iso8601.htm); some sources also 
> give the alternative as yyyymmdd 
> (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_8601#Calendar_dates). If these 
> sources are correct, why did LC-PCC choose to require the alternative 
> formulation? It's harder to read, and therefore proofread. By clashing 
> with the required yyyy-mm formulation, it's non-intuitive, a 
> cataloger's shibboleth.
>
> Can anyone involved with that decision speak to this?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Deborah
>
> Deborah J. Leslie | Folger Shakespeare Library | [log in to unmask] 
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]> | 202.675-0369 | 201 East Capitol St., 
> SE, Washington, DC 20003 | www. folger.edu
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging 
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Gary L Strawn
> Sent: Monday, 13 April 2015 09:35
> To: [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] Best practices in updating authority records
>
> [DJL: ] <...>
>
> 2) If you're going to use the 046 field, read the documentation; you 
> aren't free to guess or make something up. Common errors:
>
>                If you only have a month and a year, a hyphen is 
> required (this does not mean you necessarily have "$2 edtf")
>
>                If you have "$2 edtf" then hyphens are *required* 
> between year and month, and month and day
>
>                The order of date elements is year-month-day. Not 
> year-day-month; not month-day-year; not day-month-year.  Largest to 
> smallest in scope; it's actually quite simple.
>