On Thu, 11 Sep 2003, Chuck Bearden wrote:
>
> On Wed, Sep 10, 2003 at 05:30:37PM -0400, Joshua Ferraro wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 10, 2003 at 02:05:24PM -0500, Ed Summers wrote:
> [...]
> > >
> > > The call to as_usmarc() will populate the record length for you. So you
> > > shouldn't have to do it yourself when building a record on the fly. We're you
> > > getting an error somewhere about the record length not being populated?
> > >
> > > Your code looks to be creating a bunch of fields each with one subfield in them.
> > > This is not correct. Furthermore, it is unlikely that the order that the
> > > subfields come back from MySQL is the order in which you will want to build your
> > > field...but I may be wrong there (not knowing Koha). I'm sure the Koha folks
> > > have some utility for dumping their database as MARC don't they? If not they
> > > should :)
> >
> > How should the field/subfields be set up? I'm not sure about the order, what
> > order should they be in? As far as a MARC utility there isn't one that I know
> > of, but I've emailed the developer who built Koha's MARC support just in case.
>
> Going by memory from when I was a cataloger ('94-'96), I offer these
> general guidelines. Group the fields as follows and in the following
> order:
>
> * Control Fields 001-008
> * Number and Code Fields (01X-04X)
> * Classification and Call Number Fields (05X-08X)
> * Main Entry Fields (1XX)
> * Title and Title-Related Fields (20X-24X)
> * Edition, Imprint, etc.Fields (250-270)
> * Physical Description, etc. Fields (3XX)
> * Series Statement Fields (4XX)
> * Note Fields (50X-58X)
> * Subject Access Fields (6XX)
> * Added Entry Fields (70X-75X)
>
> Generally, order fields numerically by tag within their group. The
> following field groups are exceptions to strict numerical ordering by
> tag:
>
> * Note Fields: I don't believe that USMARC specifies a field order,
> but many catalogers follow AACR2 in ordering note fields
> according to the order of the fields in 1XX-4XX they apply to
> (assuming also the practice of making notes only needed to
> clarify or justify something in fields 1XX-4XX).
> * Subject Access Fields: order these fields according their importance
> in reflecting the subject content of the work being described, from
> most important to least important.
>
> I think there were some common practices with respect to to added
> entries (70X-75X), but I can't recall them. I would say that, for those
> persons and corporate bodies named in added entries who share the same
> kind of responsibility for the intellectual content of the work as the
> entity named in the main entry (if any), group them together at the
> beginning of the list and order them according to the order in which
> they are named in the statement of responsibility. For others, group
> them according to their role in creating the intellectual content of the
> work (e.g. illustrators, editors, translators, etc.), and within their
> groups order them according to the order in which they are named in the
> work.
>
> I have neither looked at an LCRI (Library of Congress Rule
> Interpretation) nor participated in AUTOCAT in years--there may be some
> better help to be had from those sources.
>
> I hope this helps.
>
> Chuck
>
>
To append what Chuck wrote on the order of notes field above.
Monograph catalogers follow AACR guidelines. Therefore,
you may see the following 5XX field order for monograph
but not serial.
516
538
546
536
500
530
520
505
533
534
etc.
(Serial catalogers follow CONSER guidelines, strictly
numeric order.)
--Jackie
|Jackie Shieh
|Special Projects & Collections Team
|Harlan Hatcher Graduate Library
|University of Michigan
|920 North University
|Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1205
|Phone: 734.936.2401 FAX: 734.615.9788
|E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
