Print

Print


$d ??

Dont see that in MARC 245.

Gene

On Wednesday, May 10, 2017, Gemberling, Ted P <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> A belated response to this thread. Looking over the comments that have
> been made, it seems a big problem with this initiative is that it is
> presented as deleting ISBD punctuation when it’s actually just changing the
> way it’s put on OPAC displays.
>
> The beginning of the rationale statement was: “In brief, the rationale
> for removing the ISBD punctuation is that since the ISBD punctuation was
> designed for the card catalog format, it is now an unnecessary burden
> within MARC …”
>
>
>
> Misleading since the proponents seem to expect, if I understand them
> correctly, that space, semicolon, space will be inserted by OPAC’s after
> 245 $c if there are one or more $d’s.
>
>
>
> If that’s an incorrect interpretation of their intent, does that mean that
> in “*245 *10 *$a *How to play chess *$c *Kevin Wicker *$d *with a
> foreword by David Pritchard *$d *illustrated by Karel Feuerstein,” we are
> going to display something like “additional author” every time there’s a
> *$d?*
>
>
>
> Ted Gemberling
>
> UAB Lister Hill Library
>
>
>
> *From:* Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]
> GOV <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml',[log in to unmask]);>] *On
> Behalf Of *Beacom, Matthew
> *Sent:* Monday, May 01, 2017 3:31 PM
> *To:* [log in to unmask]
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml',[log in to unmask]);>
> *Subject:* [PCCLIST] Removing Punctuation in MARC records (PCC ISBD and
> MARC Task Group Revised Final Report (2016): a timeline
>
>
>
> Hi all,
>
>
>
> The attached is a brief rationale and a timeline for implementing the
> recommendations of the PCC ISBD and MARC Task Group (Revised Final Report
> 2016).
>
>
>
> The Task Group recommendation is at https://www.loc.gov/aba/pcc/
> documents/isbdmarc2016.pdf
>
>
>
> Here, in the body of this message, is the text of the attached, the
> rationale and the timeline for action.
>
>
>
> Rationale:
>
> A fuller rationale for removing ISBD punctuation from MARC records is in
> the report of the PCC ISBD and MARC Task Group Final Report (2016). In
> brief, the rationale for removing the ISBD punctuation is that since the
> ISBD punctuation was designed for the card catalog format, it is now an
> unnecessary burden within MARC; and that, as we prepare for a post-MARC
> bibliographic environment, the ISBD punctuation is a hindrance to that
> transition.
>
>
>
> The argument against making the change is a pragmatic one that combines
> concerns about timing—doing this just at MARC’s ‘end-of-life’ moment—and
> the potential for labor-intensive disruption in that time. In 2014, it was
> thought that the impact of the change on our systems before the anticipated
> migration to linked data and BIBFRAME in 3-5 years would be a double whammy
> that should be avoided, and we hoped removing the ISBD punctuation could be
> handled on the conversion of our MARC data to BIBFRAME.  But in 2017, the
> anticipated migration seems at least as far off as it did in 2014: a sure
> sign that imminence was over-predicted.
>
>
>
> Removing the ISBD punctuation would improve MARC as a format for
> bibliographic data for the duration of the MARC format’s use. As noted
> above, the use of MARC can be reasonably expected to continue far longer
> than some anticipated in 2014. The benefits of removing ISBD punctuation
> from MARC records include:
>
>
>
> MARC coding can be used alone to designate parts of the bibliographic
> description, eliminating the redundancy of parallel input of punctuation
> and MARC coding. Eliminating most punctuation from MARC records simplifies
> data entry and allows catalogers to focus solely on coding to better
> identify parts of the bibliographic description. It also allows for
> flexibility in the design of online displays without the need for
> suppressing punctuation. Omission of ISBD punctuation in MARC records is
> routine in other MARC formats used around the world.
>
>
>
> MARC 21 will be around for many years with millions of additional records
> created as libraries slowly move to working with BIBFRAME. With a
> transition to BIBFRAME, local systems and bibliographic utilities will need
> the ability to readily map data back and forth, i.e., BIBFRAME to MARC and
> MARC to BIBFRAME. Those mapping programs would be greatly simplified and
> more easily maintained if punctuation did not have to be added or removed
> at the same time. Developing programs now to remove punctuation from MARC
> 21 will facilitate a transition to BIBFRAME in the future.
>
> Actions:
>
> 1.       TIMELINE: new start date set to Jan. 1, 2018 for going live with
> the permission to not use ISBD punctuation; 9-10 months to prepare and
> adapt.
>
> a.       Phase 1: Now to ALA Annual 2017:  Make and distribute record
> sets for initial preparation testing for impact in local systems, etc.
>
> b.       Phase 2: July 1, 2017-Oct. 1, 2017: Use this preparatory period
> (3 months) to complete initial testing of record sets in local systems and
> report on impact.
>
> *Initial testing is for non-access points in bibliographic records.
> Vendors shall be made aware that further testing will address access points
> and authority records, where applicable.   Furthermore, only records with
> ISBD punctuation are included in the initial testing.  The records do not
> include coding that needs to be developed by MAC. *
>
> c.       Phase 3: Oct.  1, 2017 to Jan. 1, 2018:  Analyze results of
> testing in local systems, and evaluate responses from system vendors
> (including any projections they may have regarding development and release
> of upgrades to accommodate proposed changes). Use this second preparatory
> period (3 months) to understand or make any local changes necessary to
> tools, workflows, policies.
>
> *d.*       Phase 4: Jan. 1, 2018-? Based on analysis of phase 3, develop
> timeline, revise specifications, plan changes to tools, workflows, policies
> as necessary.
>
> *January 1, 2018 is a “check-in” date to understand the status after
> hearing from vendors, testers, etc. *
>
> *1. might vendors need to fold punctuation changes into a multi-year
> development cycle?*
>
> *2. Will there be any MAC actions and MARC documentation updates needed? *
>
> *3. Confirm assumption that this proposal would ease conversion to linked
> data.*
>
>
>
> 2.       COMMUNICATION: PCC community outreach to stakeholders (i.e.
> local system vendors: ILMS and discovery tool providers) Goes through all 4
> phases.
>
> a.       OCLC will reach out to ILMS vendors
>
> b.       PCC group will also reach out to discovery tool vendors (some
> overlap between a & b; redundancy OK)
>
> c.       PCC institutional members reach out to vendors as customers
>
> d.       PCC Steering will monitor progress through each phase and chair
> will report to PoCo and PCC
>
>
>
> 3.       TESTING RECORD SETS: OCLC and LC will create and distribute
> small record sets for PCC institutional members and vendors to use to test
> impact of ISBD-punctuation-less records on import, workflow, indexing,
> sorting, display*, *etc.
>
> a.       OCLC will have some number of pairs of records (with
> punctuation/without punctuation) --some English, some German--to test by
> end of phase 1
>
> b.       LC will have some number of pairs of records (with
> punctuation/without punctuation) to test by end of phase 1
>
> c.       PCC institutions may create pairs of records (with
> punctuation/without punctuation), too.
>
> d.       PCC institutional members and vendors will report on impact
> (using the test record sets) at end of phase 2
>
>
>
> The phases 1-3 above, in short, prepare us to systematically and
> effectively remove unneeded punctuation from the MARC records. Phase 4,
> beginning Jan. 1, 2018, is when preparation will morph into implementation.
>
>
>
> PCC will be working through Policy Committee, the Standing Committees—each
> will have its role, and whatever ad hoc or temporary groups may be needed.
>
>
>
> Thank you and all the best to you,
>
>
>
> Matthew Beacom
>
> PCC Chair
>
>
>
> Lori Robare
>
> PCC Chair-Elect
>
>
>
> Kate Harcourt
>
> PCC Past Chair
>