[DCRM-L] MARC fields 751 and 752

[Noble, Richard]

I would strongly favor the addition of relators to the 752 field. One of
its greatest strengths is the hierarchical format, which makes it possible
to browse lower elements of the hierarchy without prior knowledge of their
existence in the database, ordered according to a specifically geographical
logic, i.e. how we think about places.

The format of 751 is the equivalent of 700s in direct order without see
from references--not optimal, i.e. not how we think about names.

RICHARD NOBLE :: RARE MATERIALS CATALOGUER :: JOHN HAY LIBRARY
BROWN UNIVERSITY  ::  PROVIDENCE, R.I. 02912  ::  401-863-1187
<Richard_Noble at Br <RICHARD_NOBLE at BROWN.EDU>own.edu>

On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 9:43 AM, Lapka, Francis <francis.lapka at yale.edu>
wrote:

> In 2007, MARBI approved creation of MARC field 751:
>
>
>
> Added entry in which the entry element is a geographic name that is
> related to a particular attribute of the described item, e.g., the place of
> publication for a rare book, place of distribution, place of a university
> to which a dissertation is submitted, place of an event such as a
> conference, etc.
>
> http://www.loc.gov/marc/bibliographic/bd751.html
>
>
>
> The scope of this field is similar to that of the 752, which substitutes
> “hierarchical form of place name” for “geographic name.”
>
>
>
> Compare the results:
>
>
>
> 751 __ $a Lyon (France) $e publication place [or $4 pup]
>
>
>
> 752 __ $a France $d Lyon.
>
>
>
>
>
> While we may debate the merits of recording the entry element in
> hierarchical form (752) or a form as entered in an authority file (751),
> the 751 has at least one clear advantage: it allows us to specify the
> nature of the relationship between the place and the resource, via
> subfields $e or $4. These subfields are not available in the 752.
>
>
>
> I fear our 752 tracings are regrettably ambiguous. They fail to indicate
> whether the data is about a place of production, publication, distribution,
> or manufacture.
>
>
>
> Before long, it is very likely that the option to record relationships to
> PPDM places will be formalized in RDA. See:
>
>
>
> FRBR Library Reference Model:
> http://library.ifla.org/1084/1/207-riva-en.pdf
>
> Proposed revisions to RDA 2.7-2.10: http://www.rda-rsc.org/6JSC/BL%20rep/2
>
>
>
>
>
> Given that RDA will soon emphasize related places, I think now would be a
> good time to modify our practice so that we can make explicit the nature of
> these relationships (of course agencies are free to do as they please).
> Might we consider it best practice to use the 751 instead of the 752? Or
> could we request a modification to the 752 field to add subfields in which
> to record the relationship designator and/or code? Are any on this list
> already using the 751 field?
>
>
>
> Francis
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Francis Lapka  ·  Catalog Librarian
>
> Department of Rare Books and Manuscripts
>
> Yale Center for British Art
>
> 203.432.9672  ·  francis.lapka at yale.edu
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/attachments/20151130/1fe147f2/attachment.html>