Closed anarchivist closed 9 years ago
Looking at the MARC examples for 256 reinforces the point about field 256, and I've changed the mapping. The addition of the geographiccoordinates element accommodates 255$c, but not the other contents of 255, so I've split that up in the crosswalks for both MARC and MODS.
In EAD 2002,
<materialspec>
was understood in part to map to MARC fields 254, 255, and 256. In my opinion, the type of data that appears in a 256 field is probably better expressed in<extent>
. I'm curious if our work on the geographic elements somehow addresses some of the needs to map geographic information that would be expressed in a 255 field.(copied from #297)