Print

Print


My only concern with this approach is that adding the hyphens only works in MARC fields where $2 can be specified for the date format. This does not appear to be the case in the Bibliographic Format 033 field, where $2 is defined as:

$2 Source of term

MARC code that identifies the source of the term used in $p [Place] when it is from a controlled list.

 

By creating a PCC practice of using hyphens in the 046 Authorities Format, catalogers who use other MARC date fields in their cataloging (such as the 033) will have to remember not to use hyphens in those cases.

 

Right now the exceptional practice is rare (only when using EDTF in 046). I suspect this is easier to remember than imposing the 033 vs. 046 hyphenation differences on catalogers who use both fields.

 

 

Kathy

 

 

Kathy Glennan

Head, Authorities and Specialty Cataloging

University of Maryland

[log in to unmask]

 

 

From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Kevin M Randall
Sent: Monday, April 13, 2015 4:19 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] Best practices in updating authority records

 

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]

(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]
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]

+(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]
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]   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]
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] | 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]
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.