Secondary literature: change 240 to 245

[jenniferward]

In the template for a new bibliographic item for Secondary literature: http://muscat.rism.info/admin/catalogues/new the field number 240 is incorrect. In this field, "Title" is actually the title as given on the title page, so the field should be designated 245 instead. At the moment we do not need a separate field for 240.

[HirschSt]

needs maintenance and BSB OPAC adjustment

[HirschSt]

• check if all 240 subfields are in 245 configuration
• check linkage between 240 and existing 730 (other title)

[jenniferward]

We only need a 240 when we catalog music editions (which need uniform/standardized titles), but these do not occur very often, and I think having both would confuse many users. So far it looks like people have input music editions in 245 style anyways (i.e. statement of title as on title page). And if we're going to use standardized titles, then we need the full range of key/opus/catalog of works options, which I think we want to avoid.

I might suggest that the current 240 $g gets changed/migrated to 245 $k and 240 $h gets changed to 245 $h (if we want to keep both of those in the 245).

I think the information in the 730 is better suited to a 246 field.

[lpugin]

@HirschSt will look when this can be updated on the OPAC side. Once this is clarified we can change it and update the data.

[fjorba]

At the same time, I'd say that, if 245 is the tag chosen for title, the schema could change the field name description for title, because title is it:

https://github.com/rism-ch/muscat/blob/d272db5b35f67b23d349101d8bccfb3a9b966dee/db/schema.rb#L43

And, as a wish-list, revue_title for journal, as it is most commonly used in academic literature:

https://github.com/rism-ch/muscat/blob/d272db5b35f67b23d349101d8bccfb3a9b966dee/db/schema.rb#L44

[jenniferward]

Yes to "journal"!

[fjorba]

I think I can take care of this one, just after pushing #1104. However, I don't know how does it affect your current database records, that I think you can solve better than me.

[fjorba]

I have done the easy part, the trivial search-and-replace. Now, I need your input, @jenniferward or whoever else decides, about what to do with the old 240 $g. In principle, it seems that 245 $h is the closest equivalent, or maybe $k, albeit there are differences:

• https://www.loc.gov/marc/bibliographic/bd240.html
• https://www.loc.gov/marc/bibliographic/bd245.html

According to https://github.com/rism-digital/muscat/blob/7fac6eb1053eef01366c250a5568aadf78628146/config/editor_profiles/default/configurations/PublicationFormOptions.yml#L178, the list of values is extracted from http://www.loc.gov/standards/valuelist/marcgt.html

I sincerely don't know how to proceed, because it affects your records. But my intuition says that that we should pick any subfield now, be $h or $k, as an interim solution, and proceed to create different document templates (#1013), because then we'll have to rethink it again, but with slightly different conditions. If, instead, we try to force very carefully accomodate 240 $g to something else, it may not help us with the current goal of having different templates. Because your records will probably have to be changed, automatically, anyway. In other words, separate the software and default parameters from your catalog records.

[fjorba]

Sorry, @jenniferward, I didn't see that your already stated your preferences a couple of years ago:

I might suggest that the current 240 $g gets changed/migrated to 245 $k and 240 $h gets changed to 245 $h (if we want to keep both of those in the 245).

I think the information in the 730 is better suited to a 246 field.

Do I understand that, at least for the software parameters, I can continue with those replacements?

[xhero]

@HirschSt Can we change this or will it break export to the OPAC? A change like this (touching data) needs to be done in 2 steps: 1) Migrate the old data to the new format 2) Update Muscat to reflect the change To do this, we normally schedule a downtime of the system so the change can be performed. Since this is a relatively small change, I propose we make a small dedicated release of Muscat with just this change. Recapitulating:

• 240 $g -> 245 $k
• 240 $h -> 245 $h
• Delete 240

What should we do with 730?

[fjorba]

According to @jenniferward,

I think the information in the 730 is better suited to a 246 field.

[jenniferward]

Thanks for finding that @fjorba - I was just going to (re)write that, so I'm glad I agree with myself. :-) The 7xx fields are linking fields to other authority files, and in Muscat technically it is not used that way. In Muscat it is just a free-text field. That's why 246 seems better. Originally, it was not my intention to interfere with the 730, but since it came up, it would be good to change it - if conformity with MARC is desirable here.

I'll point out that there is also a MARC 242 for "Translation of Title by Cataloging Agency"; our Muscat guidelines say use 730 for translated titles, but I don't know if that kind of differentiation is needed in our context.

[fjorba]

At UAB we use 730 and 830 for series, or series-like titles (sometimes with a little imagination), and we keep 246 for translated or variant titles, all together (ex: https://ddd.uab.cat/record/225927?ln=en).

In the same vein, I think that when designing the new templates, 773 should be used for vertical relations, but we'll open an issue to discuss it.

[xhero]

730 is configured just as a text field? I guess then we can move it to 246 $a?

[fjorba]

As far as I can understand Muscat parameters now, yes, it does, no foreign class at sight:

https://github.com/rism-digital/muscat/blob/90973e11d83c15c427829bd6dc4701ff3d95493b/config/marc/tag_config_publication.yml#L382

However, I understand that in the future, both 730 and 830 (and 773 $t) should be linked to standard_titles

[jenniferward]

While we are changing the Secondary Literature, I would like to see Secondary Literature's 520 changed to 362: Dates of publication (Erscheinungsdaten/Erscheinungsverlauf). This field was used in Kallisto to indicate the beginning/end dates of periodicals. Example: https://muscat.rism.info/admin/publications/210 It continues to be used this way: https://muscat.rism.info/admin/publications/50006225 The guidelines reflect this.

520 is not accurate, because 520 refers to the contents of an item, not when it was published.

[jenniferward]

I created separate issues for the 520 and 730: Move 520 to 362: https://github.com/rism-digital/muscat/issues/1490 Move 730 to 246: https://github.com/rism-digital/muscat/issues/1491