MARC 520 (summary, etc.)

[timathom]

The current function to produce annotations from 520 fields only seems to work when linking to external summaries (when subfields $u/$c are present). Plain 520 $a summaries are mapped to bf:note. Does a summary have to have an external URI to be a bf:SummaryAnnotation?

MARC XML: http://bibframe.org/resources/Qno1410529432/marcxml.xml BF: http://bibframe.org/resources/Qno1410529432/bibframe.rdf

[ntra00]

This is a good point. Annotations are supposed to be for things you where you want to note the source of the assertion, often outside of the institution's catalogers, so you can get your abstracts, cover art, reviews etc., from certain sources, and swap them out down the road, and you can drop your own holdings when exchanging the bib data with others (if you in fact need to ship anything anywhere). This inline summary looks like something the cataloger wrote (I could be wrong), and there's no notation of the source of the summary, so you couldn't make much of an Annotation out of it. On the other hand, if they were all built the same, there'd only be one way of doing something.

[fallgrennj]

An inline 520$a may be transcribed from a book jacket or some other place on the resource itself, or it may be a synopsis of a back cover, book jacket, publisher promo, etc. or from just about anywhere else. It's still a summary; it just happens to have been typed inline.

Regardless, just because a 520 is inline, rather than referencing an external abstract/summary source, doesn't make it authoritative or official or necessarily mean another institution will want to use it. Is there any reason you can't put the 520$a in an Annotation with a source=unattributed? I would think that consistent mapping of data should have some value regardless of the source of that data.

Aside from that, I was under the impression that Annotations were also for locally asserted data that other institutions may not want to keep/use.