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: December 14, 2010
REVISED:
NAME: Additional Name and Resource Attributes for RDA in the MARC 21 Bibliographic and Authority Formats
SOURCE: Library of Congress, Acquisitions and Bibliographic Access (ABA) Directorate
SUMMARY: This paper discusses additional elements that may be needed to accommodate RDA in the MARC 21 Bibliographic and Authority format. These include elements for: Language of expression, Associated institution, Fuller form of name, and Type of jurisdiction.
KEYWORDS: Field 041 (AD); Field 377 (BD, AD); Language of expression (AD); Associated Language (BD, AD); Field 373 (AD); Associated Institution (AD); Affiliation (AD); Field 378 (AD); Fuller Form of Name (AD); Field 334 (AD); Type of Jurisdiction (AD); RDA
RELATED: 2009-01/1; No. 2010-04
STATUS/COMMENTS:
12/14/10 – Made available to the MARC 21 community for discussion.
1/9/11 - Results of MARC Advisory Committee discussion: Proposals for the additional elements will be presented at ALA Annual 2011.
2.1. Language of expression. Preference is for broadening field 377 (Associated Language). If added to the bibliographic format and used for expression records the definition needs to state that it is only used for language of expression. It was noted that the current definition should also be broadened so that it can be used for language of family, since currently it is defined for persons and corporate bodies. Only subfields $a (Language code) and $b (Language term) are needed.
2.2. Associated institution. In broadening the definition of 373 (Affiliation), the paper suggested a $a for Affiliation of person and $b for Associated institution for corporate body. It was suggested that instead we could broaden $a to be Associated institution rather than separate these into two subfields. Consideration needs to be given to whether we need to include both the preferred form and the form on the piece, in which case subfields could be provided for each.
2.3. Fuller form of name. There may be a need to define two subfields, one for fuller form of surname and one for fuller form of given name. In that case one or the other or both could be used. There is no need for $0 because there wouldn't be a record to link to, since this is only part of the name entry.
2.4. Type of jurisdiction. It was pointed out that currently the scope of RDA is limited to only some types of jurisdiction, but this will change to include all types. It was suggested that $0 be added to link to a record; the Germans make authority records for jurisdiction types.
During the experimentation using Resource Description and Access (RDA) it has become clear that there are a number of RDA data elements that are not accommodated adequately in the MARC 21 Authority format. This paper will discuss several related to FRBR group 1 (work/expression/manifestation/item) and group 2 (persons, families, corporate bodies) entities.
These attributes may be recorded as part of the heading (in RDA called “access point”), but are separate elements in RDA that may be needed in an authority record in case it is necessary to later disambiguate the heading. As is the case with attributes discussed in Proposal No. 2009-01/1 (which defined new attributes for persons, families and corporate bodies) and Proposal No. 2010-04 (which defined new attributes to support RDA detail for works and expressions), RDA instructs cataloguers to include a data element in the access point in order to identify and/or disambiguate. If including in the access point, institutions implementing RDA in MARC 21 will have to decide whether to also record the information in one of the newly-created fields. If the attribute is not needed in the access point by one institution it may be needed by another, so inclusion of the data in the new fields will create a richer and more flexible entity description. In the future there could be a need to break a conflict in a heading and if the data is already in the record in a specific data element, it could be done programmatically. It is useful to have the information in discrete labeled fields whether or not it’s in the access point to facilitate search. For instance, someone may want to look for all persons in a specific profession. Earlier proposals which added attributes to MARC 21 authority records indicated an expansion of the function of the authority from being a vehicle to only establish the form of a heading to gathering more complete metadata about the entity described.
The data elements discussed in this paper include:
RDA considers Language of expression (6.11) a core element when needed to differentiate an expression of a work from another expression of the same work. It specifies using an appropriate term denoting the language recorded in the language preferred by the agency creating the data. A description of the expression could be carried in a MARC 21 bibliographic or authority record, although currently many institutions use authority records. If using a bibliographic record, the data is carried in field 008/35-37 in combination with field 041 and field 546 (Language Note). In an authority record the only place for the data now is in subfield $l of the access point in field 1XX. As explained above, a separate data element is desirable for this information so that it is recorded whether or not it is in the heading, since it may be needed later to break a conflict, e.g. if the resource is made available in another language.
Proposal No. 2009-01/1 defined Field 377 (Associated Language) to accommodate the RDA elements Language of the person and Language of the corporate body. This followed an initial discussion in Discussion Paper 2008-DP05/2, which included two options: defining Bibliographic field 041 or a new field. The decision was to use a new field, since the definition of language in the Authority format was different from that in the Bibliographic format (i.e. language of a person or corporate body vs. language of the resource), and many of the subfields in field 041 were inappropriate for the RDA elements that were being defined. The description and scope of field 377 currently limits the use of the field to language of the person or corporate body although the field is similar to field 041 in its use of a language code for the data.
Two options again might be considered for Language of expression.
2.1.1 Definition of field 041. Defining field 041 as it is defined in the Bibliographic format would allow for using the same field whether the institution creating the data uses the Bibliographic or Authority format for works and expressions. Field 041 is defined in the MARC 21 bibliographic format as follows:
In the MARC 21 Authority format the field would only be used for expressions and not all the subfields are appropriate for expression level data. It might be defined with fewer subfields in the Authority format as follows:
Note that Proposal No. 2011-01 (Coding for Original Language in Field 041 of the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format) suggests the addition of subfields for additional language coding, but these are not at the expression level, so is not relevant to this paper.
2.1.2 Broaden field 377 (Associated language). Field 377 is currently defined as:
“Language of the person: the language a person uses when writing for publication, broadcasting, etc.
Language of the corporate body: a language a corporate body uses in its communications.”
It uses the following content designators:
The field could be broadened as follows: “Codes for languages associated with the entity described in the record. Includes the language a person uses when writing for publication, broadcasting, etc., a language a corporate body uses in its communications, or the language in which a work is expressed.” It may be desirable to give separate data elements for language of person or corporate body and language of expression. In addition some have suggested providing a subfield for language term. Field 377 could be revised as follows:
Because expression records use either the Authority or the Bibliographic format, field 377 would probably need to be defined in the MARC 21 Bibliographic format. Otherwise field 041 would be used in the Bibliographic format and 377 in the Authority format for the same data element.
RDA considers Associated institution (11.5) “a core element for conferences, etc., if the institution’s name provides better identification than the local place name or if the local place name is unknown or cannot be readily determined. Associated institution is a core element for other corporate bodies if the institution’s name provides better identification than the local place name or if the local place name is unknown or cannot be readily determined, and it is needed to distinguish the corporate body from another corporate body with the same name”. As with the other RDA elements being considered in this paper, it can be used as an addition to the name for purposes of breaking a conflict or can be recorded as data about the entity described. Currently there is no place to record it in an authority record for the conference or corporate body.
Example:
Associated institution: University of Maryland, College Park
Corporate body: B'nai B'rith Hillel-Federation Jewish Student Center
Field 373 (Affiliation) was defined in the MARC 21 Authority Format with Proposal No. 2009-01/1 and contains the name of a corporate body in subfield $a. It is defined as follows:
Affiliation is a separate data element in RDA (9.13) and is defined as “a group with which a person is affiliated or has been affiliated through employment, membership, cultural identity, etc.” Examples in RDA are corporate bodies. The field could be broadened as follows to include both affiliation and associated institution by defining a new subfield. The start and end period could also be applicable to Associated institution.
Note that field 510 could be used in an authority record to indicate an associated corporate body if the authorized form rather than the found form is used. RDA instructs that the data is in the form of this data element as found on the resource.
RDA element Fuller form of name (9.5) is defined as:
“A fuller form of name is a core element when needed to distinguish a person from another person with the same name.” RDA specifies that the fuller form may be for a part of a name represented only by an initial or abbreviation in the form chosen as the preferred name, or it could be a part of the name not included in the form chosen as the preferred name.
In a MARC 21 authority record it may be included as part of the access point in subfield $q (Fuller form of name). As with other elements being considered in this paper, a separate data element may be desirable for this information so that it is recorded whether or not it is in the heading, since it may be needed later to break a conflict.
Example:
Fuller form of name: Nancy Elizabeth
Preferred name recorded as: Smith, Nancy E
Field 378 could be defined in the MARC 21 Authority Format as Fuller form of name.
RDA defines an element for Type of jurisdiction (11.7.15) under the instructions for corporate bodies to identify the type of jurisdiction for a government other than a city or a town. It is recorded in the language preferred by the agency creating the data. Rule 11.13.1.6 instructs to add the type of jurisdiction to the name of a government other than a city or town when needed to distinguish between access points for two or more governments that have the same name, or names so similar that they may be confused.
In the MARC 21 Bibliographic and Authority formats jurisdictions can be established in fields X51 or X10.
Examples:
Type of jurisdiction as an element:
Landkreis
Preferred name recorded as: Darmstadt (Germany)
Type of jurisdiction as an addition to the name in order to distinguish:
Darmstadt (Germany : Landkreis)
Type of jurisdiction as an element:
County
Preferred name recorded as: Cork (Ireland)
Type of jurisdiction as an addition to the name in order to distinguish:
Cork (Ireland : County)
Field 334 could be defined in the MARC 21 Authority format for Type of jurisdiction. This might be useful not only to support RDA, but also for identifying and discovering geographic facets about bibliographic resources. It would be useful to broaden the data element to allow for identifying geographic areas that are non-governmental geographic areas such as rivers, mountains, areas. Although RDA does not specify a controlled list of terms for jurisdictions, there are likely such lists in existence. For example, the Board of Geographic Names uses controlled terms.
3.1.1 Should field 041 be defined in the authority format for Language of expression? If so, are all the subfields applicable?
3.1.2 Is broadening the 377 the better option? If so, what impact would it have on any existing uses? Would a new subfield be defined for language of expression and $a redefined as language of person or corporate body?
3.1.3 Should a subfield be added in field 377 for language terms? Many of the new RDA fields in the Authority format have a choice of recording the data as code or term.
3.1.4 If broadening the 377, does it need to be defined in the Bibliographic format? What are the issues in having multiple fields for language in the bibliographic format, since field 041 is used frequently?
3.2.1 Is field 373 an appropriate place for the data if it were broadened? Are there issues with redefining the field as Associated institution, since it was previously defined as Affiliation?
3.2.2 Is it better for these to be separate fields, in which case, which field should be used in the Authority format?
3.3.1 Is a new field 378 appropriate to accommodate Fuller form of name?
3.3.2 Is it possible to repeat this data element? If so, should there be a subfield $2 to specify the description convention code?
3.4.1 Should this data element be broadened to Type of geographical entity or jurisdiction? Should it be limited to governmental entities other than cities or towns, as RDA calls for?
3.4.2 How might this data be used?
3.4.3 Is field 334 appropriate for this data element?
HOME >> MARC Development >> Discussion Paper List
| The Library of Congress >> Especially
for Librarians and Archivists >> Standards ( 04/07/2011 ) |
Legal | External Link Disclaimer | Contact Us |