[DCRB-L] Fwd: AACR2 and MARC

[Jane Gillis]

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.

Jane


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

Jane Gillis | Rare Book Cataloger|  Sterling Memorial Library
Yale University | New Haven CT  06520
(203)432-8383 (voice) | (203)432-7231 (fax) | jane.gillis at yale.edu
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/attachments/20030116/1e4aaaf4/attachment.htm