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:

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):

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

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

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

</subfield>

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

</datafield>

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

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

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

</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]