NACO is still waiting for LC to implement the last few MARC 21 updates. 111 $c repeatability isn’t the only thing affected – we are also still using 046 $s and $t with their former definitions, and not using 046 $q and $r.
Authority Control Team Manager
The British Library
Tel.: +44 (0)1937 546104
From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
On Behalf Of Charles Croissant
Sent: 02 March 2017 18:07
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: [PCCLIST] repeating the subfield $c in a 111 authority record
Dear collective wisdom,
I've run into a problem in trying to update a conference authority record to RDA. I think the problem is actually with OCLC's validation algorithm, but I'm wondering if others have encountered this as well, and whether it's a "known problem."
I would like to update NAR no2002013383 to RDA. It's for the Council of Pavia-Siena, a 15th-century church council that took place in two locations.
Applying RDA 188.8.131.52.1, it appears that the RDA heading (expressed in MARC) should be:
111 2_ $a Council of Pavia-Siena $d (1423-1424 : $c Pavia, Italy; $c Siena, Italy)
i.e. with the subfield $c repeated.
According to MARC 21 for Authority Records, subfield $c _is_ repeatable. There's even a statement to this effect in the General Information X11 section: "Multiple adjacent locations are contained in a repeatable subfield $c."
But when I attempt to validate the heading in OCLC, it fails validation, so I am unable to replace the record.
So I'm wondering, should I remove the second $c and replace the record, or should I wait to replace this record until this validation problem gets fixed?
thanks for any advice,
Senior Catalog Librarian
Pius XII Memorial Library
Saint Louis University
St. Louis, MO 63108