The Library of Congress >> Especially
for Librarians and Archivists >> StandardsThe Library of Congress >> Especially
for Librarians and Archivists >> Standards
HOME >> MARC Development >> Proposals List
DATE: December 20, 2013
REVISED:
NAME: Defining Indicator Values for Field 588 Source of Description Note in the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format
SOURCE: CONSER/OCLC
SUMMARY: This paper proposes defining the first indicator position of the 588 field as a display constant controller to facilitate the correct creation of the captions to the note and enable the data in the field to be treated more as a data element that could be readily mapped to other formats or used for other purposes.
KEYWORDS: Field 588 (BD); Source of Description Note (BD)
RELATED: 2013-DP05
STATUS/COMMENTS:
12/20/13 – Made available to the MARC community for discussion.
01/25/14 – Results of MARC Advisory Committee discussion: Approved with the editorial change that the Input Convention for Display Constants will be revised to indicate that display terms as part of the text are only used when the 1st Indicator is blank.
03/12/14 - Results of MARC Steering Group review - Agreed with the MAC decision.
This paper proposes defining the first indicator position of the 588 field as a display constant controller. The captions Description based on and Latest issue consulted were commonly input in field 588 under AACR2. RDA illustrates use of Identification of the resource based on in place of Description based on. CONSER and other institutions have opted to continue to use the shorter Description based on caption under RDA while other cataloging communities use the caption Identification of the resource based on.
These captions are lengthy and complex. Both Description and Identification are frequently misspelled so that catalogers are often in the position of giving this element more attention than ought to be needed. Unnecessary variations in the captions (e.g., Latest issue consulted versus Latest issue examined versus Most recent issue consulted) add complexity to automated programs attempting to make use of data identified by the caption. These issues would be eliminated by defining the first indicator position as a display constant controller following the pattern already established for a number of other note fields.
Field 588 is currently defined in the Bibliographic Format as follows:
In discussing the paper 2013-DP05 MARBI agreed to defining first indicator value # as "no information provided" and to defining two additional values for the first indicator. This paper proposes defining the following values:
First Indicator
# - No information provided
0 - Source of description
1 - Latest issue consultedINPUT CONVENTIONS
Display Constants - Introductory terms or phrases such as Source of description: and Latest issue consulted are not carried in the MARC record. They may be system generated as display constants associated with the first indicator value.
First indicator Display constant # [no information provided] 0 Source of description: 1 Latest issue consulted:
It should be noted that the proposed values for the first indicator do not limit the scope of the field to recording only source of description or latest issue consulted. Field 588 can also be used for other types of catalogers' notes, in which case value # (No information provided) will continue to be used.
There was some discussion of defining a subfield $i for text, as suggested by MARBI, but the authors of the proposal could not think of any situation or examples where a $i would be needed. It was thus left out of the proposal.
588 0# $a Vol. 2, no. 2 (Feb. 1984); title from cover.
Display example:
Source of description: Vol. 2, no. 2 (Feb. 1984); title from cover.
588 0# $a Volume 2.
Display example:
Source of description: Volume 2.
[Example is a multipart monograph]
588 1# $a 2001.
Display example:
Latest issue consulted: 2001.
588 ## $a Cannot determine the relationship to Bowling illustrated, also published in New York, 1952-58. $5 DLC
Display example:
Cannot determine the relationship to Bowling illustrated, also published in New York, 1952-58.
In BIBFRAME these notes could be handled in several ways, the leading two that would be compatible with the BIBFRAME vocabulary are shown below using the RDF turtle notation. (See Introduction to Turtle used in MAC Papers.)
4.1. Use the general Note class and express the noteType as a string:
i1 a bf:Instance;
bf:note n1.
n1 a bf:Note;
bf:noteType "Last issue consulted";
bf:noteValue "2001".
i1 a bf:Instance;
bf:note n1.
n1 a bf:Note;
bf:noteType "Source of Description";
bf:noteValue "Volume 2".
4.2. Another model would be to make separate note subproperties for each indicator/tag value:
i1 a bf:Instance;
bf:lastIssueConsulted "2001".
i1 a bf:Instance;
bf:sourceOfDescription "Volume 2".
Note: The name of the property would likely NOT be the same as the "display phrase" but a briefer property name, such as "issueConsulted" and "descriptionSource".
Note: The properties would actually be URIs in the raw data.
Note: While either model can be developed as multilingual, the second model is more technically compatible to language change for the display phrase.
Define the following indicator values for field 588 (Source of Description Note) in the MARC 21 Bibliographic format:
First Indicator
# - No information provided
0 - Source of description
1 - Latest issue consulted
HOME >> MARC Development >> Proposals List
| The Library of Congress >> Especially for Librarians and Archivists >> Standards ( 03/13/2014 ) |
Legal | External Link Disclaimer | Contact Us |