<html>
<font size=3>I am forwarding this message from Autocat because Gordon Pew
makes an excellent point on why examples in AACR2 (and other codes, I
would add) need to be in the MARC format. I think this has been
discussed in Bib Standards. I hope we take this advice in
formulating the DCRM chapters.<br><br>
Jane<br><br>
<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite>Date:
Thu, 16 Jan 2003 10:37:06 -0600<br>
Reply-To: AUTOCAT <AUTOCAT@LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU>,<br>
Gordon Pew <gpew@law.harvard.edu><br>
Sender: AUTOCAT <AUTOCAT@LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU><br>
From: Gordon Pew <gpew@law.harvard.edu><br>
Subject: AACR2 and MARC<br>
To: AUTOCAT@LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU<br>
X-YaleITSMailFilter: Version 1.0c (attachment(s) not renamed)<br><br>
In replying to the thread about how to record a reprint date, Mac
Elrod<br>
commented, "Some decade I hope we will have the examples in AACR2
given<br>
with MARC coding". I couldn't agree more. It has often
been noted on<br>
this list that AACR2 is a cataloging code that is supposed to be<br>
communications-format neutral. It is designed to serve catalogers
who use<br>
every kind of carrier from typed-up cards to integrated library
systems:<br>
and, as presently constituted, it is for use by libraries employing<br>
USMARC, UKMARC, CANMARC, Australian MARC (or their successors), and<br>
probably others.<br><br>
Increasingly, however, national standards are moving toward
harmonization,<br>
and non-Anglo-American schemes are being studied for harmonization as
well<br>
(e.g., the German RAK, IIRC). Increasingly, also, technology has
allowed<br>
the automation of some of the smallest libraries. These
developments<br>
argue for the admission by the code-writers that the great majority
of<br>
libraries interpret AACR2 through the MARC format. There are some
things<br>
in AACR2 that I find very cumbersome to place within the MARC
format.<br>
One of the latest developments, the accommodation of earlier and
current<br>
imprints for looseleafs and other integrating resources, is a case
in<br>
point. In AACR2, the provision of this information is made by
notes: in<br>
the MARC format, the information is carried (or will be) in repeating
260<br>
fields. In AACR2, 2002 revision, this is explained in 12.4 et seq.,
where<br>
one is instructed to use notes for earlier publishing information.
You<br>
must know the MARC format in order to know that you should enter
earlier<br>
place and publisher in a second 260 field: and your automated system
may<br>
or may not generate a note in the bibliographic record. If it
doesn't,<br>
you must add one manually.<br><br>
If "they" won't take the steps necessary to make the
correlation between<br>
AACR2 and the MARC format, perhaps it is time for someone else to create
a<br>
work that will provide this vital service for catalogers -- especially
in<br>
a time when professional catalogers seem, literally, to be a dying
breed.<br>
(And don't even get me started on the complications caused by the
LCRIs!)<br><br>
Gordon Pew<br>
Head of Copy Cataloging and Database Management<br>
Harvard Law School Library<br>
164 Langdell Hall<br>
1545 Massachusetts Avenue<br>
Cambridge, Mass. 02138<br>
gpew@law.harvard.edu<br>
(617) 495-4487 </blockquote>
<x-sigsep><p></x-sigsep>
Jane Gillis | Rare Book Cataloger| Sterling Memorial Library<br>
Yale University | New Haven CT 06520<br>
(203)432-8383 (voice) | (203)432-7231 (fax) | jane.gillis@yale.edu<br>
</font></html>