[DCRB-L] Fwd: AACR2 and MARC

[Deborah J. Leslie]

I completely agree that examples in DCRM should be encoded in MARC. --DJL

-----Original Message-----
From: Jane Gillis [mailto:jane.gillis at yale.edu] 
Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2003 11:59 AM
To: dcrb-l at lib.byu.edu
Subject: [DCRB-L] Fwd: AACR2 and MARC


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/ce028259/attachment.htm