Yes, genre headings is the better option as you can use more than one and they work in all MARC formats (I've started adding "655 Novels" where appropriate), but our new catalog uses LitF so we're stuck with it.

 

 

John Lavalie | Cataloging and Metadata Specialist | Des Plaines Public Library | www.dppl.org

 

 

 

From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Christopher Thomas
Sent: Wednesday, December 6, 2017 5:44 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] LitF

 

The LitF values are very limited and very broad.  I suppose more could be added, but it would never be possible to have more choices than the 26 letters a-z plus digits 0-9.  For purposes of faceted searching, I agree with Naun and I think it would be more productive to focus our efforts on using genre terms, which offer much more granularity and flexibility.

 

Christopher Thomas, M.L.S.| Electronic Resources and Metadata Librarian

(949) 824-7681 | fax (949) 824-6700 | [log in to unmask]

Law Library · University of California · Irvine

www.law.uci.edu/library

 

From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of John Gordon Marr
Sent: Wednesday, December 6, 2017 3:15 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] LitF

 

To summarize:

 

4.     APPROVED CHANGE
 
In the Bibliographic format:
 
Change the name of 008/33 - Books from "Fiction" to "Literary form"
Change the name of the following values in 008/33 - Books:
       0      Not fiction (not further specified)
       1      Fiction (not further specified)
Add the following values to 008/33 - Books:
       f      Novels
       c      Comic strips
       d      Dramas
       e      Essays
       h      Humor, satires, etc.
       i      Letters
       j      Short stories
       m      Mixed forms  (Used for multiple literary forms (the item
              is known to be literary but more than one code applies).
       p      Poems
       s      Speeches
       u      Unknown 

 

LCs rationale for opposing  the “Approved change” would seem to have been:

 

“It is extremely difficult to ameliorate the differences between the USMARC practices and the CAN/MARC
practices.  The relationship between the USMARC codes and the CAN/MARC codes is 1-to-many, and there frequently is little in a record to help make the translation."

 

John G. Marr

Collections

Zimmerman Library

University of New Mexico

Albuquerque, NM 87010

[log in to unmask]

 

         **"I really like to know the reasons for what I do!"**

                                             Martha Watson

 

Opinions belong exclusively to the individuals expressing them, but sharing is permitted.

 

 

From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Kathy Glennan
Sent: Wednesday, December 06, 2017 3:56 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] LitF

 

Ah, it was part of format harmonization between USMARC & CANMARC.

 

For the MARBI proposal that led to this change, which includes the rationale, see: http://www.loc.gov/marc/marbi/1996/96-8rrp2.html

 

 

Kathy

 

Kathy Glennan

Head, Original & Special Collections Cataloging

University of Maryland Libraries

 

On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 4:40 PM, Trina Pundurs <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

On Tue, Dec 5, 2017 at 7:11 PM, Adam L. Schiff <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

I’m not aware of the reason for this longstanding policy. 

C'mon, I can't believe I'm the only one here who's been around long enough to remember when 008/33 was defined as "Fiction" and the only valid values were 0 and 1.

 

Now, granted, that changed 20 years ago, but we know how quickly policies and procedures get updated in the cataloging world, especially at the big institutions.  8|

 

Trina

 

Trina Pundurs
Catalog & Metadata Services
University of California, Berkeley
[log in to unmask]
http://www.lib.berkeley.edu/