Print

Print


Hi John,

Yes they should be 551.  I think whoever did these records repeated the 110/710 coding that they would use in a bibliographic record.  Relationships designators cannot be used with 551 (see DCM Z1 for 551: "Do not use subfield $i with subfield $w coded “r” until relationship designators for places are developed."), so maybe they thought they could get around that by using 510.  It's just plain wrong.  The indicator mistake is just unfathomable though. 😉

I corrected both of those records by removing the 510s with just the country.  The hierarchical superiors of the Joint Army-Navy-NASA-Air Force Interagency Propulsion Committee should have been the U.S. Army, Navy, NASA, and Air Force, since it is a joint committee of all of those bodies.

On the French law record, I'm not sure that the use of "Issuing body" is correct, as this is generally used for serials ("An agent issuing a work, such as an official organ of the body").  I left it alone, as there doesn't seem to be anything better to use other than perhaps "author" since a law is a textual resource.

Adam Schiff
University of Washington Libraries

From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging <[log in to unmask]> on behalf of Hostage, John <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Thursday, August 27, 2020 8:51 AM
To: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Jurisdictions in authority 510 field
 

I’ve been seeing names of jurisdictions entered in field 510 in authority records, sometimes with first indicator 2 (!).  Shouldn’t these be in field 551 (if it makes any sense to have such references at all)?

 

Examples: no2018158984, no2018041740

 

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

John Hostage

Senior Continuing Resources Cataloger

Harvard Library--Information and Technical Services

Langdell Hall 194

Harvard Law School Library

Cambridge, MA 02138

[log in to unmask]

+(1)(617) 495-3974 (voice)

+(1)(617) 496-4409 (fax)
ISNI 0000 0000 4028 0917