I thought 045 was used for "aboutness" time period? Like a historical
book about the 19th century, or perhaps a novel that takes place in the
19th century -- time periods covered by the content itself.
Rather than time period of creation or publication or conception, a
different thing.
If it's used in some records for "aboutness" time period, and in other
records for "first publication of Work" information, and they're both
mixed together in a corpus --- then it's pretty much useless, since you
have no idea which it is, so can't present it as either.
This is the problem with much of our MARC data, fields/subfields that
have been used to mean entirely different things, with no way to tell
how it's used in a particular record. This makes the data nearly useless.
On 7/27/2011 2:24 PM, john g marr wrote:
> I thought I mentioned this yesterday, but my post seems to have been
> lost: it should be possible to "tweak" the intent, at least locally,
> of OCLC's field 045 ("Time period of content") to supply the sort of
> dates this thread is discussing. Such a use does not appear to be
> *proscribed* in the field definition.
>
> John G. Marr
> Cataloger
> CDS, UL
> Univ. of New Mexico
> Albuquerque, NM 87131
> jmarr_at_unm.edu
> jmarr_at_flash.net
>
>
> **There are only 2 kinds of thinking: "out of the box" and "outside
> the box."
>
> Opinions belong exclusively to the individuals expressing them, but
> sharing is permitted.
>
Received on Wed Jul 27 2011 - 14:38:10 EDT