The Library of Congress >> Especially
for Librarians and Archivists >> StandardsThe Library of Congress >> Especially
for Librarians and Archivists >> Standards
HOME >> MARC Development >> Discussion Paper List
DATE: May 16, 2017
REVISED:
NAME: Repeatability of Subfield $s (Version) in MARC 21 Bibliographic and Authority Format Fields
SOURCE: Program for Cooperative Cataloging (PCC) Standing Committee on Standards
SUMMARY: The paper discusses the need for making subfield $s (Version) repeatable in fields X00, X10, X11, and X30 of the MARC 21 Bibliographic and Authority Formats and fields 240 (Uniform Title) and 243 (Collective Uniform Title) of the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format.
KEYWORDS: Fields X00, X10, X11, X30 (AD, BD); Field 240 (BD); Field 243 (BD); Subfield $s, in fields X00, X10, X11, X30 (AD, BD); Subfield $s, in field 240 (BD); Subfield $s, in field 243 (BD); Version (AD, BD); Expression access points (AD, BD); Uniform titles (AD, BD)
RELATED:
STATUS/COMMENTS:
05/16/17 – Made available to the MARC community for discussion.
06/25/17 – Results of MARC Advisory Committee discussion: The paper was converted to a proposal and approved as submitted. Subfield $s is not defined in fields 100, 110, 111 of the Bibliographic format and will not be added.
08/07/17 - Results of MARC Steering Group review - Agreed with the MAC decision to convert to and approve as a proposal.
Fields X00 (Personal Names), X10 (Corporate Names), X11 (Meeting Names), and X30 (Uniform Titles) of the MARC 21 Bibliographic and Authority Formats and Fields 240 (Uniform Title) and 243 (Collective Uniform Title) of the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format include a number of subfields used with access points for works and expressions. Subfield $s (Version) is found in the title portion of these fields, and is currently non-repeatable.
It has become apparent, that for some expression access points in RDA, there is a need for subfield $s to be repeatable. RDA 6.27.3 specifies that one or more of the following elements is added to an authorized access point representing a work or part or parts of a work to construct an expression access point:
i) content type
ii) date of expression
iii) language of expression
iv) other distinguishing characteristic of expression
The corresponding MARC subfields for each of these elements, according to the RDA to MARC mappings in the RDA Toolkit are:
i) $h - Medium (NR)
ii) $f - Date of a work (NR)
iii)$l - Language of a work (NR)
iv) $o - Arranged statement for music (NR)
and
$s - Version (NR)
There are some cases in which two “other distinguishing characteristic of expression” elements are needed in order to name a particular expression of a work. The most common of these identified so far has to do with translations of different versions of a work. For example, William Langland’s work Piers Plowman, a Middle English poem from the fourteenth century, exists in three extant versions, commonly referred to as the A-text, B-text, and C-text versions:
100 1# $a Langland, William, $d 1330?-1400? $t Piers Plowman $s (A-text)
100 1# $a Langland, William, $d 1330?-1400? $t Piers Plowman $s (B-text)
100 1# $a Langland, William, $d 1330?-1400? $t Piers Plowman $s (C-text)
Numerous different translations into modern English of each of these versions have been published. To formulate an RDA access point for one of these translations, one starts with the access point for the particular version translated and adds the language of translation, for example:
100 1# $a Langland, William, $d 1330?-1400? $t Piers Plowman $s (A-text). $l English
In order to distinguish multiple expressions of a version in the same language of translation, an additional distinguishing characteristic must be added. The content type or date of expression could be added, but the most useful characteristic for identifying the specific expression is probably the name(s) of the translator(s). Surnames are typically used in such expression access points. The corresponding element in RDA for a surname is “other distinguishing characteristic of expression,” or another MARC subfield $s:
100 1# $a Langland, William, $d 1330?-1400? $t Piers Plowman $s (A-text). $l English $s (Covella)
[Modern English translation by Francis Covella of the A-text of Piers Plowman]
100 1# $a Langland, William, $d 1330?-1400? $t Piers Plowman $s (A-text). $l English $s (Webster and Neilson)
[Modern English translation by K.G.T. Webster and W.A. Neilson of the A-text of Piers Plowman]
However, subfield $s is not currently repeatable. As a temporary solution, catalogers creating expression access points in MARC bibliographic and authority records have had to resort to using subfield $g (Miscellaneous information) instead of a second subfield $s. In order to accurately encode the RDA elements, a second $s is needed.
If subfield $s in fields X00, X10, X11, and X30 of the MARC 21 Bibliographic and Authority Formats and fields 240 and 243 of the MARC 21 Bibliographic Formats were made repeatable, the problem of encoding two separate instances of the RDA element “other distinguishing characteristic of expression” would be solved.
Proposed Change:
In fields X00, X10, X11, and X30 of the MARC 21 Bibliographic and Authority Formats and in fields 240 and 243 of the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format, make the following change to subfield $s:
Change $s - Version (NR) to $s - Version (R)
Bibliographic Format:
130 0# $a Herzog Ernst $s (Version B). $l English $s (Thomas and Dussère)
240 10 $a Piers Plowman $s (A-text). $l English $s (Webster and Neilson)
240 10 $a Tristan und Isolde. $s Vocal score. $l English $s (Chapman)
600 10 $a Langland, William, $d 1330?-1400? $t Piers Plowman $s (B-text). $l English $s (Sutton)
700 12 $i Container of (expression): $a Langland, William, $d 1330?-1400? $t Piers Plowman $s (C-text). $l English $s (Economou)
Authority Format:
100 1# $a Langland, William, $d 1330?-1400? $t Piers Plowman $s (A-text). $l English $s (Covella)
100 1# $a Wagner, Richard, $d 1813-1883. $t Tristan und Isolde. $s Vocal score. $l English $s (Chapman)
130 #0 $a Herzog Ernst $s (Version B). $l English $s (Thomas and Dussère)
400 1# $a Mozart, Wolfgang Amadeus, $d 1756-1791. $t Don Giovanni. $s Libretto. $l English $s (Auden and Kallman)
500 1# $i Critique of (expression): $a Langland, William, $d 1330?-1400? $t Piers Plowman $s (B-text). $l English $s (Sutton)
In the BIBFRAME 2.0 Vocabulary (http://id.loc.gov/ontologies/bibframe.html) the property “version” is a literal property that contains phrases that help with the identification of a work. It is not limited in the number of such phrases that might be included in the identification information.
5.1. Is there a demonstrated need for making subfield $s repeatable?
5.2. Making subfield $s repeatable in fields representing title and name/title authorized access points will result in different coding for any access points currently coded with subfield $g to contain version-of-a-version information. Should existing use of subfield $g in these cases be considered an obstacle to making subfield $s repeatable?
5.3. Are there alternatives to making subfield $s repeatable which MAC needs to consider, e.g., defining a new subfield code, or redefining subfield $g to accommodate version-of-a-version information explicitly?
5.4. In practice, the sequence of title subfields indicates subordination of one repeatable subfield to another, e.g., the subordination of one subfield $p part title to another. Is there any need to encode version-of-a-version information with a more explicit indication which version is subordinate to which?
HOME >> MARC Development >> Discussion Paper List
| The Library of Congress >> Especially
for Librarians and Archivists >> Standards ( 08/07/2017 ) |
Legal | External Link Disclaimer | Contact Us |