Print

Print


The BIBCO Standard Record (BSR) RDA Metadata Application Profile (http://www.loc.gov/aba/pcc/bibco/documents/PCC-RDA-BSR.pdf) does not require Literary Form to be coded in the fixed fields.  008/33 is required in some of the formats, but not for books. 

 

LC does not code it at all for poetry and drama, and for literature, it uses only “1” rather than any of the more specific codes available.  The fact that so many records for literature (particularly drama and poetry) lack any indication of what they are in the 008/33 will make it difficult to retrospectively facet on this information.  Unless there are subject headings in the record for drama or poetry, it will be difficult to retrospectively enhance the record with LCGFT terms, even general ones like Drama or Poetry.  I’ve raised this issue with the PCC Standing Committee on Standards, to discuss whether there is any incentive to revise the BSR to add 008/33 (LitF) as a core element for books.  

 

Maybe there is a way for OCLC and others to identify at least some proportion of records with 008/33 value “0” that should have some other value and replace them with the correct value.  I regularly change records for novels that have “1” to “f” and records for drama and poetry that have “0” to “d” or “p”, but this is only possible on a one-by-one as encountered basis, and does not scale.  

 

When and if LC moves to a facet-based discovery system, they may decide that not coding the 008/33 for poetry and drama was a less than useful choice.

 

Adam Schiff

University of Washington Libraries

 

From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Chew, Chiat Naun
Sent: Tuesday, December 05, 2017 2:07 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: LitF

 

The original poster asked if there was "any movement to use [LitF] more aggressively". I don't believe there is, but a related development that may be worth mentioning is the recent report to SAC on faceted vocabularies:

 

www.loc.gov/aba/pcc/documents/PoCo-2017/BraveNewFacetedWorld-170713.pdf

 

The report advocates for the use of LCGFT (among other vocabularies) and discusses the possibility of mapping LitF to genre/form terms. There's a lot to be said for preferring the easily understandable, MARC-independent, linked-data friendly genre/form vocabulary over the continued use of fixed fields for this type of information. There are mapping and alignment issues we'd still have to work through, but I think this is a direction PCC should explore.

 

Naun.

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Chew Chiat Naun

Head, Metadata Creation 

Information & Technical Services, Harvard Library

625 Massachusetts Avenue

Cambridge, MA  02139


From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging <[log in to unmask]> on behalf of James L Woods <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: 05 December 2017 10:22:48
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] LitF

 

Same here at Wisconsin.

 

Jamie Woods

 

************************************

 

From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Deborah J. Leslie
Sent: Tuesday, December 05, 2017 9:14 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] LitF

 

I don't know about others, but we at the Folger make pretty full use of it.

 

Deborah J. Leslie | Folger Shakespeare Library | [log in to unmask] |

 

From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of John Lavalie
Sent: Tuesday, 05 December, 2017 09:41
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: [PCCLIST] LitF

 

We're moving to a new catalog that uses the fixed field element LitF to populate a facet.  We've never paid much attention to LitF, so we're going to have to start now.

 

I've noticed that in OCLC, few records go beyond 0 and 1.  What are the guidelines for LC and PCC?  Is there a movement to use this element more aggressively?

 

 

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