> On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 3:38 PM, john g marr <jmarr_at_unm.edu> wrote:
>> Or: you could use OCLC's field 046 = "Special coded dates" = type
>> of date
>> codes if date information cannot be recorded in fixed-field elements
>> DtSt
>> ... and Dates." This is definitely fudging, however, since 046 is
>> primarily
>> intended for data that *should* but cannot be put in the fixed
>> field. You
>> would have to have a code added to those permissible in $a to
>> identify the
>> "type of date."
>>
>> Another alternative would be to define a new field that works like
>> 045 or
>> 046 but as fixed field data (006.5? :)).
****
Moving images catalogers have long been interested in having an
explicit, consistent, machine-comprehensible way to record the date of a
moving image work. Users are clearly interested in this and we fail
them. Date is even central to the common means of citing films--by title
and date, e.g., Avatar (2009). I still remember my befuddlement when I
first saw LC call numbers for videos while working in the IU Halls of
Residence libraries and wondering why they all ended in 1997 or 1998 and
not the year the movie was made. Only after taking cataloging did I
understand why it was like that.
There was a discussion on OLAC-L some time ago about this in which the
consensus seemed to be 046$k would be an appropriate existing subfield.
The definition is
"Date or beginning of the date range on which a resource has been
created..."
This is followed by the pesky qualification
"...when it is not more appropriately recorded in another field. Dates
contained in subfield $k may not be coded elsewhere in the formats."
(http://www.loc.gov/marc/bibliographic/bd046.html)
This parallels the newer 046$k in the authority format
"For a work, earliest date (normally the year) associated with a work;
that date may be the date the work was created or first published or
released. For an expression, the earliest date (normally the year)
associated with an expression; that date may be the date of the earliest
known manifestation of that expression. In both cases the date in
subfield $k may be the starting date of a range or a single date."
(http://www.loc.gov/marc/authority/ad046.html)
The bib 046$k does seem to leave it somewhat open as to which group 1
FRBR entity is being created, but the intention of the moving image
community would be to use it for the date of creation of the work.
When we contacted the LC Network Development and MARC Standards Office,
they did not seem to think that there was any need to retain the
qualification that the date created in 046$k cannot be repeated
somewhere else in the record. They have promised to remove the
restriction as an editorial change, which I hope will be included in the
next update.
Kelley
Received on Sun Aug 14 2011 - 20:22:30 EDT