[DCRB-L] MARC format change proposal: repeatability of 260 $e,f,g

[Manon Theroux]

John,

Here are some additional comments (sorry to make them so close to your 
original Aug. 15 deadline!):

1) 1st paragraph, sentence beginning "The rule calls for"

Should we cite the rule number(s) here and specify that we are talking 
about AACR2 (or doesn't MARBI really care...)?

2) 1st paragraph, last sentence: "Even when given, it is highly unusual for 
there to be more than one set of subfields needed."

For 19th-century materials, I would not say it is NOT highly unusual for 
there to be more than one set of subfields needed. It is extremely common. 
Any library with 19th-cent. materials that is exercising the AACR2 option 
to transcribe manufacturing information in the "Publication, Distribution, 
Etc., Area" definitely needs the subfields repeatable. Not very many 
libraries have consistently exercised this option, but that is a different 
matter and one you already touch upon in the preceding sentence.

I think I would would either delete this sentence or replace it with one 
emphasizing that those libraries choosing to exercise the AACR2 option are 
not currently able to so for 19th-cent materials according to existing MARC 
standards. This proposal really goes beyond DCRB.

3) 1st example

Need a mark of punctuation between the two $f subfields - right now they 
are separated by a mark of omission only.

4) 2nd example

"co." should be "Co." and "Sergent" should be "Sargent"

5) These examples are actually taken from AACR2 records not DCRB records 
... should I retrieve the actual books and see what the exact DCRB 
transcriptions would be or are we treating these as hypothetical examples only?

6) Neither of the examples includes a repeated $g. I'm not sure if this is 
a problem but I thought I would point it out.

7) Final paragraph: "The revised DCRB will call for ..."

I seem to recall some disagreement on the Bib Standards Committee as to 
whether we should transcribe all manufacturing information in the 260 field 
(no matter where in the publication it appears) or do so only when it 
appears on the chief source (transcribing data that appears elsewhere in a 
note). Since the revised DCRB rules are still in their "alpha" form, do you 
think we should soften this wording to allow us "wiggle-room"? Something 
like: "Current drafts of the revised DCRB call for ..."  ? Or doesn't it 
matter...

8) Attachment, first question

Form has typo "guildine" - we might want to point this out to the 
appropriate person/group.

9) Attachment, answer to second question

Add the following as a second group that would be affected by the change?:

Catalogers of 19th-century machine-press books applying the AACR2 option to 
routinely include manufacturing data in the "Publication, Distribution, 
Etc., Area"

-Manon




At 8/10/2003 01:19 AM, lcreider at lib.nmsu.edu wrote:
>John,
>    Before you send the proposal forward, one more typo: 10. "Miniscule" 
> should
>be "Minuscule," I believe.
>    One thing I worry about is the impact that this might have on catalogers
>using AACR2.  Will people take advantage of the format, and is this a 
>problem?
>On the other hand, I could see how catalogers of visual materials might 
>find it
>useful.
>      Larry Creider
>
>Quoting John Attig <jxa16 at psulias.psu.edu>:
>
> >
> > I'll make that change. I've heard no other comments.  Do you want to have
> > the Committee vote or should I just send it forward?
> >
> >          John
> >
> > At 10:17 AM 8/9/2003, Deborah J. Leslie wrote:
> > >John, this looks very good. I have no suggestions to make, except to point
> >
> > >out a typo in the answer to question #2: Catalogingof
> >
> >