Print

Print


This is exactly the case.  The 245 $f/g represents the previous standard of “APPM,” “archives, personal papers and manuscripts.”  It was meant to display more or less the same way as the headings in printed “guides to manuscripts,”  the summary descriptions of holdings that archival repositories would publish for sale and general circulation, as opposed to the much more detailed finding aids that once only existed in the repository itself.

DACS is meant to be used with EAD/EAC “Encoded Archival Description,” which replaces plain typed or Word finding aids.  In EAD, title and date are separate data elements, so the DACS people decided to map date to 264.  Of course, EAD does not have the equivalent of MARC 008 data.

Our institution alone has thousands of MARC records for archival collections in the APPM form, which for human interpretation works just fine.  As with most other changes of this sort, designed for machines instead of people, the time required to make updates is prohibitive.  (DACS also requires a made-up title, whereas APPM used a $k generic title such as “Records”)  Furthermore, in our OPAC at least, the 008 datum is the one that is read for sorting by date.

Chris Baer
Hagley Museum and Library

From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Noble, Richard
Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2017 10:43 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] Dates in 245/264 for an archival collection

What is the effect of omitting 264 in favor of 245 $f in various systems, especially in searching and presentation by date of search results? Might we say that in 245 it serves primarily as information, in 264 as a datum (adjunct to and perhaps more nuanced than MARC 008 date)?

RICHARD NOBLE :: RARE MATERIALS CATALOGUER :: JOHN HAY LIBRARY
BROWN UNIVERSITY  ::  PROVIDENCE, R.I. 02912  ::  401-863-1187
<Richard_Noble@Br<mailto:[log in to unmask]>own.edu<http://own.edu>>

On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 10:09 AM, McDonald, Stephen <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
It looks to me that PCC practice is to follow DACS practice for the title and RDA practice for the 264.  See LC-PCC PS 2.3.2.11.4 for the policy on title.

                                                                                Steve McDonald
                                                                                [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>


From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>] On Behalf Of Christine DeZelar-Tiedman
Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2017 9:59 AM
To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] Dates in 245/264 for an archival collection

DACS practice would be to use 245 $f and $g and omit 264, so my guess agrees with yours, that the duplication is to try to cover both rda and dacs bases. I'd be interested in other opinions, but DACS and RDA are different enough that I don't think they should be combined in one record.

On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 4:23 PM, Casey Mullin <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
[excuse cross-posting]

Dear CW,

I note that dates of archival collections are covered by the RDA element 2.7.6.7, which maps to 264 _0 $c. There is an optional addition for the bulk dates, in addition to the inclusive dates.

My question is: is there provision in RDA for *also* (or instead) giving these date ranges in 245 $f and $g? Example:

245 ...  papers, ǂf 1861-2015 ǂg (bulk 1923-1995).
264 _0ǂc 1861-2015, bulk 1923-1995.

I note that 245 $f and $g are not included in the MARC to RDA Bibliographic mapping in the Toolkit. So my initial answer to my own question would be no.

Some cursory searching in OCLC for archival collection records coded RDA reveals a diversity in practice. Sometimes 245 $f (and $g if applicable) are given, but 264 is not. Sometimes both. Sometimes the inclusive dates are given in both fields, but the bulk dates in 245 only. Etc. Does such a redundancy suggest a practice "borrowed" from DACS (which I am not versed in); some records I found are coded *both* dacs and rda in 040.

I'm OK with the 245/264 redundancy for our local purposes, but I'd like to ensure our records are RDA-compliant.

Thanks,
Casey
________________________________
Casey A. Mullin
Head of Cataloging and Metadata Services
Western Washington University

Chair, Music OCLC Users Group

360-650-7458<tel:(360)%20650-7458>
[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>




--
Christine DeZelar-Tiedman
Metadata and Emerging Technologies Librarian
University of Minnesota Libraries
160 Wilson Library                      (612) 625-0381<tel:(612)%20625-0381> PH
309 19th Ave. S.                        (612) 625-3428<tel:(612)%20625-3428> FAX
Minneapolis, MN 55455               [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>