Print

Print


Dear list members,

As we are in the process of improving our authority records so that they 
become more usable in the semantic web environment, we have come across 
the following issue related to authority record identifiers.

Since the introduction of the RDA (in our country we started using the 
RDA back in 2015), new 3XX fields such as 372 or 374 have been present 
in our records. To fill these fields in, headings from other authority 
records are used. However, so far the particular record identifier is 
not included in the field.

An example of such a record:

https://aleph.nkp.cz/F/?func=direct&doc_number=000002398&local_base=AUT

And sample 3XX fields from the record:

372 |a malířství |a grafika |a karikatury |a ilustrace |a kreslený film

374 |a malíři |a grafici |a karikaturisté |a ilustrátoři

So for example a heading "malířství" is used but its identifier ph122599 
(representing this record: 
https://aleph.nkp.cz/F/?func=direct&doc_number=000122599&local_base=AUT) 
is not included in the field.

This sample record also shows that it is common to have more occurrences 
of subfield "a" (which is correct as the subfield is repeatable). It 
also follows the MARC 21 specification which says a repeated field 
should only be added when different time periods are concerned, e.g.:

"The field is repeated if the entity has multiple fields of activity for 
different time periods." (http://www.loc.gov/marc/authority/ad372.html)

"The field is repeated if the person has multiple occupations for 
different time periods." (http://www.loc.gov/marc/authority/ad374.html)

But a number of people work in more than one professional area 
simultaneously. In that case it seems a single field with multiple 
subfields „a“ should be used. Although the MARC 21 specification lets us 
use various IDs in other subfields, in case where more subfields „a“ are 
used, it would not be clear which ID belongs to which particular 
subfield „a“ occurence.

--

If we take a look at the LC authority record for the same person 
(http://id.loc.gov/authorities/names/n80164640), we can see that no 
identifiers (identifying „Artists“ record rather than the LCSH as a 
whole) are used:

<marcxml:datafield tag="374" ind1=" " ind2=" ">

<marcxml:subfield code="a">Artists</marcxml:subfield>

<marcxml:subfield code="2">lcsh</marcxml:subfield>

</marcxml:datafield>


The German National Library (http://d-nb.info/gnd/118513591) seems to 
use more 550 fields fields which enables having more occurrences of the 
field for multiple occupations. This approach makes it possible to set a 
clear link between a label (e.g., Maler) and any IDs (in 0s):

<datafield tag="550" ind1=" " ind2=" ">

<subfield code="0">(DE-101)040372154</subfield>

<subfield code="0">(DE-588)4037215-7</subfield>

<subfield code="0">https://d-nb.info/gnd/4037215-7</subfield>

<subfield code="a">Maler</subfield>

<subfield code="4">beru</subfield>

<subfield code="4">

https://d-nb.info/standards/elementset/gnd#professionOrOccupation

</subfield>

<subfield code="w">r</subfield>

<subfield code="i">Beruf</subfield>

</datafield>


<datafield tag="550" ind1=" " ind2=" ">

<subfield code="0">(DE-101)04232470X</subfield>

<subfield code="0">(DE-588)4232470-1</subfield>

<subfield code="0">https://d-nb.info/gnd/4232470-1</subfield>

<subfield code="a">Karikaturist</subfield>

<subfield code="4">beru</subfield>

<subfield code="4">

https://d-nb.info/standards/elementset/gnd#professionOrOccupation

</subfield>

<subfield code="w">r</subfield>

<subfield code="i">Beruf</subfield>

</datafield>

--

Therefore the question is:

How to proceed if we wish to include the identifiers along with the 
semantics of the 3XX fields?

Any ideas?

Could it possibly be one of the issues that the MARC/RDA Working Group 
(https://www.loc.gov/marc/mac/MARC-RDA_Working_Group.html) is going to 
examine?

Thank you in advance for sharing your views!

Linda Jansova

National Library of the Czech Republic
[log in to unmask]