DOCSLIB.ORG

Study of MARC21 Elements for Codification and Transliteration

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Study of MARC21 Elements for Codification and Transliteration CHAPTER: 3 Study of MARC21 Elements for Codification and Transliteration Introduction History of MARCH MARC Format MARC: Record Structure Study of MARC21 for Data Encoding Record Translation Methodology for Data Codification Analysis of MARC21 Fields Conclusion Chapter 3: Study of MARCH elements 82 3.1 INTRODUCTION The holding of a library is displayed in the form of catalogue. There are many forms of catalogue: > Book catalogue > Sheaf catalogue > Card Catalogue > Computer Catalogue (Machine Readable Catalogue) So far, the widely used form of catalogue is Card Catalogue but a gradual shift is seen towards having Machine Readable Catalogue. Computer Catalogue or Machine Readable Catalogue (MARC) was developed to print card catalogue and to facilitate bibliographic data exchange. MARC, was initiated by Library of Congress (LC) as pilot project in 1965. In 1963 a study conducted by LOC recommended automation of cataloguing, searching, indexing and document retrieval (1). MARC is for identification and arrangement of bibliographic data for computer processsing and fiirther distribution of catalogue (2). MARC format is a standardized approach to describe bibliographic data so that computers can understand the data irrespective of the language and script of the data. To cut across the language barrier MARC used numeric tags but still English has its own impact on MARC , for example the use of sub-field identifiers (3). 3.2 HISTORY OF MARC21 The pilot project known as MARC-I began in the year 1965 with the main aim of creation and distribution of machine readable cataloging data to other libraries with Library of Congress (LC) as the distributing point. MARC-I only dealt with books. The development of MARC-II started in 1968. It was Chapter 3: Study ofMARC2I elements 83 planned to cover all types of materials including books and monographs. During 1970-1973 documentation was issued for other materials i.e. in 1972 films records were issued, 1973 for serials, maps and French books and by 1975 records for German, Spanish, and Portuguese material. (4) In the year 1999 USMARC and CAN/MARC were harmonized and named as MARC21 (5). The MARC21 bibliographic format, as well as all official MARC 21 documentation, is maintained by the Library of Congress and by Canadian National Library (6) and the Library of Congress maintains the MARC21 website. Recently UKMARC is also being merged with MARC21 and British Library is shifting fi-om UKMARC to MARC21. The Library of Congress and the National Library of Canada serve as the maintenance agency for the MARC21 formats for bibliographic, authority, holdings, classification, and community information data. Proposals for changes to the format may originate from any MARC21 users. The proposals for change in formats can be expressed by MARC users at open meetings or via email and the listserv (7). 3.3 MARC FORMAT A MARC record involves three elements: the record structure, the content designation, and the data content of the record (8): > Structure: MARC records is typical of Information Interchange Format (ANSI Z39.2) and Format for Information Exchange (ISO 2709). > Content designators: By definition "the codes and conventions established to identify explicitly and characterize further the data elements within a record and to support the manipulation of those data". Anything which establishes the kind of data is a Content Designator, for example, there are three kinds of content designators ~ tags, indicators, and subfield codes. Chapter 3: Study ofMARC21 elements 84 > Content: This is the actual data which we store in the data fields. Often most of the data elements are defined by standards outside the formats in for example, Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules, Library of Congress Subject Headings, National Library of Medicine Classification. The current research follows hypothesis that much of the content can be codified or transliterated which facilitates cross lingual information retrieval in Indian languages. In MARC21, formats are defined for five types of data: bibliographic, holdings, authority, classification, and community information. The current study is only oriented to Bibliographic data. The elements which are essential for bibliographic description are taken in the account. 3.3.1 MARC: Record Structure A typical MARC record consists of three main sections (8): the leader, the directory, and the variable fields. > The leader consists of data elements that contain coded values and are identified by relative character position. It is also called as Record label in CCF and UNIMARC. Data elements in this section define parameters for processing the record. It is fixed in length (24 characters) and occurs at the beginning of each MARC record. > The directory contains the tag, starting location, and length of each field within the record. The length of the directory entry is defined in the entry map elements in Leader/20-23. In the MARC 21 format, the length of a directory entry is 12 characters, while in CCF it is 14 characters where character 13* and 14"" are Segment Identifier and Occurrence Identifier. The directory ends with a field terminator character. > The data content of a record is divided into variable fields. The MARC 21 format distinguishes two types of variable fields: variable control fields and variable data fields. Chapter 3: Study of MARCH elements. 85 RECORD LENGTH LABEL 5 characters 24 characters RECORD STATUS DIRECTORY 1 character variable length TYPE OF RECORD DATA FIELDS 1 character variable length BIBLIOGRAPHIC LEVEL RECORD SEPARATOR 1 character 1 character TYPE OF CONTROL 1 character Directory Structure CHARACTER CODING ENTRY SCHEME 12 characters 1 character INDICATOR COUNT E>rrRY 1 character 12 characters ENTRY SUBFIELD CODE COUNT 12 characters 1 character ENTRY BASE ADDRESS OF DATA 12 characters 5 character ENCODING LEVEL 1 character FIELD SEPARATOR 1 character DESCRIPTIVE CATALOGUING FORM 1 character LINKED RECORD ^ REQUIREMENT Directory 3 character LENGTH OF THE LENGTH OF FIELD STARTING LENGTH OF I character TAG CHARACTER DATAFIELD LENGTH OF THE 3 characters POSITION 4 characters STARTING CHARACTER 3 characters POSITION • LENGHT OF THE IMPLEMENTATION DEFINED 1 character UNDEFINED Datafleld Structure 1 character SUBFIELD SUBFIELD FIELD INDICATORS SUBFIELD SUBFIELD IDENTIFIER IDENTIFIER SEPARATOR 2 characters variable variable 2 characters 2 characters 1 character Fig. 3.1: Diagrammatic Representation of MARC Record Chapter 3: Study ofMARCll elements. 86 3.4 STUDY OF MARC21 FOR DATA ENCODING Listing of content designators in MARCH Manual is done in nine blocks. The '0th block' is for control data and codified data. Control data are basically different types of numbers given by different agencies or by libraries for unique identification of number for example, ISBN, ISSN, Library of Congress Class Number and so on. The codified data represents country of publication, date of publication and so on. Block MARC21 Area 0 Control Data and Coded Data 1 Main Entry Fields 2 Title, Edition, Imprint etc. 3 Physical Description, etc. Fields 4 Series Statement Fields 5 Note Fields: Part 1 and Part 2 6 Subject Access Fields 7 Name, etc. Added Entries or Series; Linking Entry Fields 8 Series Added Entry Fields, Holding and Location 9 Reserved for Local Implementation Table 3.1: MARC21 Blocks 3.4.1 Multilingual MARC One of the objectives of the present work is to display the records in different Indian language scripts. There are two aspects of multilingual display, transliteration and translation. Some of the data fields require transliteration from one script to other. For example, Name of a person will be always same in all the language only script should be changed. Chapter 3: Study ofMARCll elements 87 Much of the data in a catalogue requires translation. There are three ways of achieving Machine Translation, > Data codification > Multilingual Thesaurus > Machine translation If data is codified it is easy to translate it from one language to other using a kind of table lookup where rows contain words in different languages. That is why the current project has taken the approach to identify the fields which can be codified and allot numeric value to the standardized terms and at the end with help of machine readable multilingual lookup table, one can translate the data into any other language. Similarly, multi-lingual thesauri can be developed to handle subject headings. In other words, if we can develop a lookup table for multi-lingual thesauri, one can replace any keyword into a keyword in another language using the lookup table. In the present work, this aspect is less emphasized for the lack of the availability of multi-lingual thesauri of subject keywords for Indian languages. However, the approach taken in the case of replacing the codes by translated words can be easily adopted in the case of subject key terms. There are several subfields which require machine translation. But Machine translation (MT) is still a hard task with current Natural Language Processing (NLP) technology. In this regard a study is made to identify the fields which should be transliterated and translated using codification in MARC21 bibliographic standard. Chapter 3: Study ofMARCll elements. Broadly, field/subfields can be classified in following classes, > Translated field/subfield o Codified field/subfield o Data translation > Transliterated field/subfield > Non-processed 3.4.1.1 Translated field/subfield There are number of fields which need to be translated for mulfilingual access. Since, Machine Translation (MT) is a difficult task to achieve attempt has been made to identify the fields which could be codified and which must require translation. 3.4.1.1.1 Codified field/subfield The fields which use standard data elements for description are codified. For example. Relator Term (100 - MAIN ENTRY PERSONAL NAME, subfield $e) demonstrates the role or relation of the person with the document. It is not very tough to conclude to a list of such relation. Similarly, there are many instances in the MARC where there is no existing code but one can arrive at code for example.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • From UKMARC to MARC 21: a Guide to the Differences
    Changing the record A concise guide to the differences between the UKMARC and MARC 21 bibliographic formats By R.W. Hill Bibliographic research officer, British Library The British Library Bibliographic Policy & Liaison National Bibliographic Service Boston Spa, Wetherby West Yorkshire LS23 7BQ ©The British Library 2002 1 Contents Introduction 4 1 MARC 21 and UKMARC: an overview 1.1 A side-by-side comparison 5 1.2 MARC standards 6 1.3 Related formats 6 1.4 A note on the background 6 2 Structure and components of the MARC record 2.1 Fields 7 2.2 Indicators 7 2.3 Subfields 7 2.4 Control subfields 8 2.5 Levels 8 2.6 Character set 8 2.7 Record leader and directory 8 A note on the method of comparison 10 3 Name headings 3.1 Personal name headings 11 3.2 Corporate name headings 12 3.3 Meeting/conference name headings 12 4 Title information 4.1 Uniform titles 13 4.2 Collective titles 14 4.3 Title and statement of responsibility 14 4.4 Part titles 14 4.5 Key titles 16 4.6 Variant and related titles 16 5 Edition and imprint 5.1 Edition statement 17 5.2 Cartographic mathematical data 17 5.3 Computer file characteristics 17 5.4 Publication, distribution and manufacture 17 5.5 Projected publication date 18 6 Physical description and related details 6.1 Physical description 19 6.2 Price and availability 19 6.3 Sequential designation of serials 19 6.4 Other descriptive fields 19 7 Series statements 7.1 Series statements in title added entry form 20 7.2 Series statements not in title added entry form 20 8 Notes 8.1 Principles for defining notes 21 8.2
    [Show full text]
  • Descriptive Metadata Guidelines for RLG Cultural Materials I Many Thanks Also to These Individuals Who Reviewed the Final Draft of the Document
    ������������������������������� �������������������������� �������� ����������������������������������� ��������������������������������� ��������������������������������������� ���������������������������������������������������� ������������������������������������������������� � ���������������������������������������������� ������������������������������������������������ ����������������������������������������������������������� ������������������������������������������������������� ���������������������������������������������������� �� ���������������������������������������������� ������������������������������������������� �������������������� ������������������� ���������������������������� ��� ���������������������������������������� ����������� ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Many thanks to the members of the RLG Cultural Materials Alliance—Description Advisory Group for their participation in developing these guidelines: Ardie Bausenbach Library of Congress Karim Boughida Getty Research Institute Terry Catapano Columbia University Mary W. Elings Bancroft Library University of California, Berkeley Michael Fox Minnesota Historical Society Richard Rinehart Berkeley Art Museum & Pacific Film Archive University of California, Berkeley Elizabeth Shaw Aziza Technology Associates, LLC Neil Thomson Natural History Museum (UK) Layna White San Francisco Museum of Modern Art Günter Waibel RLG staff liaison Thanks also to RLG staff: Joan Aliprand Arnold Arcolio Ricky Erway Fae Hamilton Descriptive Metadata Guidelines for RLG Cultural Materials i Many
    [Show full text]
  • DACS (Describing Archives: a Content Standard)
    SAA-Approved Standard DE S CRI DESCRIBING B ARCHIVES ING ARCHIVE A CONTENT STANDARD SECOND EDITION DESCRIBING Revised and updated, Describing Archives: A Content Standard (DACS) facilitates S : consistent, appropriate, and self-explanatory description of archival materials and A CON creators of archival materials. This new edition reflects the growing convergence among archival, museum, and library standards; aligns DACS with the descriptive ARCHIVES standards developed and supported by the International Council on Archives; and TE A CONTENT STANDARD provides guidance on the creation of archival authority records. DACS can be applied N to all types of material at all levels of description, and the rules are designed for use by T S SECOND EDITION any type of descriptive output, including MARC 21, Encoded Archival Description TA (EAD), and Encoded Archival Context (EAC). N The second edition consists of two parts: “Describing Archival Materials” and DARD “Archival Authority Records.” Separate sections discuss levels of description and the importance of access points to the retrieval of descriptions. Appendices feature a list of companion standards and crosswalks to ISAD(G), ISAAR(CPF), MARC 21, EAD, S EAC, and Resource Description and Access (RDA). Also included is an index. ECON D E D ITION BROWSE ARCHIVES TITLES AT WWW.ARCHIVISTS.ORG/CATALOG D E S C R I B I N G ARCHIVES ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ A CONTENT STANDARD SECOND EDITION Chicago THE SOCIETY OF AMERICAN ARCHIVISTS www.archivists.org © 2013 by the Society of American Archivists All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America Describing Archives: A Content Standard, Second Edition (DACS) was officially adopted as a standard by the Council of the Society of American Archivists in January 2013, following review by the SAA Standards Committee, its Technical Subcommittee for Describing Archives: A Content Standard, and the general archival community.
    [Show full text]
  • RDA and MARC 21 Development Report to EURIG 2020 RDA Satellite Meeting, 15Th September, 2020
    RDA and MARC 21 Development Report to EURIG 2020 RDA Satellite meeting, 15th September, 2020 Thurstan Young, British Library Overview • MARC 21 Background • MARC 21 Mappings in RDA Toolkit • MARC RDA Working Group www.bl.uk 2 MARC 21 Background (What is it?) • Machine Readable Cataloging 21 • Set of digital formats for the description of items catalogued by the library community • International standard for the transmission of bibliographic data • Widely used across North America, Europe and Australia www.bl.uk 3 MARC 21 Background (History) • Created in 1999 as a result of harmonizing USMARC and CAN/MARC • Adopted by the British Library in 2004 as a replacement to UKMARC www.bl.uk 4 MARC 21 Background (Structure / Content) • Field designations: three digit numeric code (from 001-999) identifies each field in a record • File structure: generally stored and transmitted as binary files, consisting of several MARC records • Content: encodes information about bibliographic resources and related entities www.bl.uk 5 MARC 21 Background (Formats) • Authority • Bibliographic • Holdings • Classification • Community www.bl.uk 6 MARC 21 Background (Development) • Discussion Papers, Proposals, Fast Track Changes • Updates issued twice a year • Sixty day embargo period to allow for implementation www.bl.uk 7 MARC 21 Background (Administration 1) • Library of Congress Network Development and MARC Standards Office • MARC Steering Group • MARC Advisory Committee www.bl.uk 8 MARC 21 Background (Administration 2) • MARC Steering Group • Library of Congress • Library and Archives Canada • British Library • Deutsche Nationalbibliothek www.bl.uk 9 MARC 21 Background (Administration 3) • MARC Advisory Committee • MARC Steering Group • Biblioteca Nacional de España • National Library of Australia • Various U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Tags for Identifying Languages File:///C:/W3/International/Draft-Langtags/Draft-Phillips-Lan
    Tags for Identifying Languages file:///C:/w3/International/draft-langtags/draft-phillips-lan... Network Working Group A. Phillips, Ed. TOC Internet-Draft webMethods, Inc. Expires: October 7, 2004 M. Davis IBM April 8, 2004 Tags for Identifying Languages draft-phillips-langtags-02 Status of this Memo This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026. Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. This Internet-Draft will expire on October 7, 2004. Copyright Notice Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004). All Rights Reserved. Abstract This document describes a language tag for use in cases where it is desired to indicate the language used in an information object, how to register values for use in this language tag, and a construct for matching such language tags, including user defined extensions for private interchange. Table of Contents 1. Introduction 2. The Language Tag 2.1 Syntax 2.2 Language Tag Sources 2.2.1 Pre-Existing RFC3066 Registrations 1 of 20 08/04/2004 11:03 Tags for Identifying Languages file:///C:/w3/International/draft-langtags/draft-phillips-lan..
    [Show full text]
  • General Introduction General Introduction
    General Introduction General Introduction The MARC 21 formats are widely used standards for the representation and exchange of authority, bibliographic, classification, community information, and holdings data in machine-readable form. They consist of a family of five coordinated formats: MARC 21 Format for Authority Data; MARC 21 Format for Bibliographic Data; MARC 21 Format for Classification Data; MARC 21 Format for Community Information; and MARC 21 Format for Holdings Data. Each of these MARC formats is published separately online to provide detailed field descriptions, guidelines for applying the defined content designation (with examples), and identification of conventions to be used to insure input consistency. The MARC 21 Concise Formats provide in a single publication a quick reference guide to the content designators defined in the Bibliographic, Authority, and Holdings formats. It provides a concise description of each field, each character position of the fixed-length data element fields, and of the defined indicators in the variable data fields. Descriptions of subfield codes and coded values are given only when their names may not be sufficiently descriptive. Examples are included for each field. COMPONENTS OF A MARC 21 RECORD MARC format characteristics that are common to all of the formats are described in this general introduction. Information specific only to certain record types is given in the introduction to the MARC format to which it relates. A MARC record is composed of three elements: the record structure, the content designation, and the data content of the record. The record structure is an implementation of the American National Standard for Information Interchange (ANSI/NISO Z39.2) and its ISO equivalent ISO 2709.
    [Show full text]
  • Library of Congress Subject Headings
    BASIC SUBJECT CATALOGING USING LCSH Instructor’s Manual ALCTS/SAC-PCC/SCT Joint Initiative on Subject Training Materials ALCTS and the Program for Cooperative Cataloging (PCC) developed this course jointly to provide additional training opportunities for the larger library community, including both PCC and non-PCC participants. The workshop focuses on Library of Congress Subject Headings. It is useful for general audiences and for member institutions of the PCC BIBCO and SACO Programs. Institutions interested in contributing new or changed subject headings to the Library of Congress Subject Headings system are invited to read about PCC SACO membership on the web page: http://www.loc.gov/catdir/pcc/saco/saco.html (1) Instructor manual – (2) Trainee Manual ISBN (Instructor Manual) 0-8444-1156-6 ISBN (Trainee Manual) 0-8444-1157-4 Version 1h, October, 2007 Minor revisions, July 2009 BASIC SUBJECT CATALOGING USING LCSH Instructor’s Manual Editor: Lori Robare University of Oregon Assistant Editors: Lynn El-Hoshy Library of Congress Bruce Trumble Harvard University Carol Hixson University of Oregon Developed as a joint effort of the Program for Cooperative Cataloging, Standing Committee on Training (PCC/SCT) and the Subject Analysis Committee (SAC) of the Association for Library Collections & Technical Services (ALCTS) Washington, DC Revised October 2007 with additional minor revisions July 2009 ALCTS/SAC-PCC/SCT Joint Initiative on Subject Training Materials Committee Members SAC Subcommittee on Subject Training Materials Lori Robare, University
    [Show full text]
  • Problems That Arise When Providing Geographic Coordinate Information for Cataloged Maps
    Page 1 Coordinates Series B, No.8 Problems That Arise When Providing Geographic Coordinate Information for Cataloged Maps Persistent URL for citation: http://purl.oclc.org/ coordinates/b8.pdf Jorge A. Gonzalez Jorge A. Gonzalez (e-mail: [email protected]) Date of Publication: 10/16/07 has worked at the George A. Smathers Libraries at the University of Florida, Gainesville for the last 23 years. He has been a map and science materials cataloger for the last 10 years. He is currently working on his Masters degree in Geography. Abstract Maps are not always published with coordinates. However, by following strict guidelines in the 034 and 255 MARC fields, and by using cataloging rules, one can interpolate this data in order to provide coordinates in bibliographic records. Bounding boxes and center point coordinates are key components in the catalog record, but problems arise with maps providing information outside of discussed or established standards, or maps not providing coordinates at all for different reasons. This article explores the importance of correctly understanding, using, and interpreting map cataloging rules to provide the most accurate information possible, with the goal of making it possible to find maps quickly and accurately—whether using database retrieval or a coordinate-driven search engine. It is proposed that we can find an efficient universal method to represent locations, addresses, and areas of the world through the use of geographic coordinates for print and digital cartographic materials. Finally, the article states the strong need to standardize spatial cataloging information to improve search query responses by providing uniform information and by addressing the problems discussed in this article.
    [Show full text]
  • Functional Analysis of the MARC 21 Bibliographic and Holdings Formats
    Functional Analysis of the MARC 21 Bibliographic and Holdings Formats Prepared for the Network Development and MARC Standards Office Library of Congress by Tom Delsey January 4, 2002 First Revision: March 21, 2002 Second Revision: July 14, 2003 Contents Foreword 3 1. Background 4 2. Objective 5 3. Scope 5 4. Approach 5 5. Mapping of MARC Data Elements to FRBR and AACR 6 5.1 Correlation with FRBR 6 5.2 Correlation with AACR 7 5.3 Implications for cross-sector exchange of data 9 6. Extending the FRBR Model 10 6.1 FRBR Entities and Primary Relationships 10 6.2 Additional Entities Related to Work 11 6.3 Additional Entities Related to Item 13 6.4 “Record Metadata” Entities 14 7. Mapping of MARC Data Elements to User Tasks 16 7.1 Summary of Mapping to User Tasks 17 Appendix A – Mapping of MARC Data Elements to FRBR and AACR Appendix B – Mapping of FRBR to MARC Data Elements Appendix C – Mapping of AACR to MARC Data Elements Appendix D – Extension of the FRBR Model Appendix E – Mapping of MARC Data Elements to User Tasks Appendix F – Mapping of Metadata Entities and Attributes to MARC Data Elements 2 Foreword This study was commissioned by the Network Development and MARC standards Office in order to link MARC 21 format data with models identified in major studies that have recently been developed in the area of bibliographic control. Applying the new models from the Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR) and the related The Logical Structure of the Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules to the data elements accommodated in MARC 21 records was a logical step to assist bibliographic data research.
    [Show full text]
  • ISSN 1943-6548 3 from the Chair 4 On
    ISSN 1943-6548 base line a newsletter of the Map and Geospatial Information Round Table TABLE OF CONTENTS 3 From the Chair 4 On the Cataloging/Cataloguing Front 18 Exec Board Minutes - December 21 Treasurer’s Report 23 Exec Board Minutes - January 31 Membership Committee 33 New Maps and Cartographic Materials 40 Digital Mapping 41 Great Moments in Map Librarianship http://www.ala.org/rt/magirt Volume 42, Number 1 February 2021 base line base line is an official publication of the American Library is published electronically six times a year: in Association’s Map and Geospatial Information Round Table website.February, April, June, August, October, and December. All older (MAGIRT). The purpose of base line is to provide current issues of base line are now freely available on the MAGIRT information on cartographic materials, other publications of base line interest to map and geography librarians, meetings, related membership. governmental activities, and map librarianship. It is a medium Members of MAGIRT can access as a benefit of their of communication for members of MAGIRT and information of interest is welcome. The opinions expressed by contributors shouldare their be own sent and to the do appropriatenot necessarily editor represent listed below. those of the American Library Association personal and institutional American Library Association and MAGIRT. Contributions members may choose MAGIRT membership for $20.00 Editor: 60611.(personal) or $60.00 (institutional) by so advising the American Library Association, 50 W. Huron St., Chicago, IL John A. Olson Government and Geo-Information [email protected] Librarian Syracuse University DistributionTel: 315-443-4818 Manager: E-mail: Mike Smith MAGIRTChairperson: OFFICERS: Subject Specialist for Maps, California Gov Info, GIS Sierra Laddusaw Coordinator, UCSD Maps Curator, Digital Scholarship Curator CatalogingTel: 858/534-1248 Editor: E-mail:Tammy [email protected].
    [Show full text]
  • Functional Analysis of MARC 21 Bibliographic and Holdings Format
    Functional Analysis of the MARC 21 Bibliographic and Holdings Formats Prepared for the Network Development and MARC Standards Office Library of Congress by Tom Delsey January 4, 2002 Updated and revised by the Network Development and MARC Standards Office, Library of Congress First Revision: March 21, 2002 Second Revision: September 17, 2003 Contents Functional Analysis of the MARC 21 Bibliographic and Holdings Formats Foreword 3 1. Background 4 2. Objective 5 3. Scope 5 4. Approach 5 5. Mapping of MARC Data Elements to FRBR 7 5.1 Correlation with FRBR 7 5.2 Implications for cross-sector exchange of data 9 6. Mapping of MARC Data Elements to User Tasks 10 6.1 Summary of Mapping to User Tasks 12 7. Extending the FRBR Model 15 7.1 FRBR Entities and Primary Relationships 15 7.2 Additional Entities Related to Work 17 7.3 Additional Entities Related to Item 20 7.4 “Record Metadata” Entities 22 7.5 Extending the FRBR Model Table 25 Table 1 – Mapping of MARC Data Elements to User Tasks Table 2 – Mapping of FRBR to MARC Data Elements Table 3 – Mapping of MARC Data Elements to FRBR Table 4 – Mapping of Metadata Entities and Attributes to MARC Data Elements 2 Foreword This study was commissioned by the Network Development and MARC standards Office in order to link MARC 21 format data with models identified in major studies that have recently been developed in the area of bibliographic control. Applying the new models from the Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR) and the related The Logical Structure of the Anglo- American Cataloguing Rules to the data elements accommodated in MARC 21 records was a logical step to assist bibliographic data research.
    [Show full text]
  • News from Library of Congress: 2007
    1 BCC2007/LC2007 NEWS FROM THE LIBRARY OF CONGRESS MOUG/MLA 2007 Special Materials Cataloging Division Music Division Cataloging Policy and Support Office American Folklife Center General Library News Copyright Office Office of Strategic Initiatives Compiled by Joe Bartl, MSR1, SMCD Feb. 26, 2007 SPECIAL MATERIALS CATALOGING DIVISION (SMCD) Top of the Document (Joe Bartl. MSR1, SMCD) CATALOGING ACCOMPLISHMENTS Bibliographic Production Arrearage Accomplishments Bibliographic Maintenance WORKFLOW SIMPLIFICATION Introduction CD Brief Workflow Leased Metadata (AMG) http://bcc.musiclibraryassoc.org/BCC-Historical/BCC2007/LC2007.html[6/6/2014 2:52:43 PM] 1 CD Sorter & CD Add OTHER INITIATIVES New Sound Recording Formats Guidelines Series and collected works (new treatment) CD Multivolume Project Choral Music Octavos Elimination of Book Backlog Card Catalogs Inventory Project Music Division Special Collections records added to Voyager OvOp Sound Recordings Popular Sheet Music Project NEW PROJECTS Ethnic Sound Recordings M1508 Sheet Music Secure Storage Facilities Telework ONGOING PROJECTS All Media Guide (AMG) Workflow Nijinska Collection SR Foreign Language Project COOPERATION/OUTREACH Advisory Groups International Groups LC Divisions LC Junior Fellows Music Division Reference Services Music Division Strategic Planning NACO/SACO Network Development and MARC Standards Office CATALOGING ACCOMPLISHMENTS Bibliographic production: New bibliographic records added to the database consisted of 3,517 scores, 16,561 sound recordings, and 2,730 books/ERs/Microforms. This totals 22,847 new bibliographic records added to the database. Arrearage accomplishments: A total of 35,395 items were removed from the arrearage as follows: CDs (33,984); LPs (348); 78s (38); 45s (125); 10” reels (224); and cassettes (676). Bibliographic maintenance and auxiliary statistics: 9,078 bibliographic records were modified.
    [Show full text]