OCLC has not yet implemented the repeatable $c, so for now, you should just include all of the places in a single $c.  I wouldn't wait to replace the record until OCLC implements this and other MARC changes.

Adam Schiff

University of Washington Libraries

From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging <[log in to unmask]> on behalf of Charles Croissant <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Thursday, March 02, 2017 10:07:04 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: 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, 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,

Charles Croissant
Senior Catalog Librarian
Pius XII Memorial Library
Saint Louis University
St. Louis, MO 63108