Consistent/Repeated Subfield Appendix

[CECSpecialistI]

Make a bucket for repeated subfields that are always the same, incl. appendix A, $3, etc. and link from all spreadsheets so we don't have to repeat ourselves

[pan-zhuo]

I was looking at 043 and run into the reappearing $2 issue. I thought it should qualify as a repeated subfield so I post things here.

$2 MARC code for the source of vocabulary. I think in most cases the value in $2 is mapped to an identifier for a vocabulary encoding scheme (VES). I see 3 options in RDA.

1. Specify the VES in an application profile. (39.13.99.59)

2. If the value in $a, $b etc. is an appellation of some entity, which often seems to be an entity related to the manifestation being described, record the value in $2 as Nomen: scheme of nomen. In Turtle it might look like this:

   <Manifestation> rdaproperty1 <Entity> .
   <Entity> rdaproperty:hasAppellation <Nomen> .
   <Nomen> rdan:P80068 '[value in $a, $b etc.]' ;
       rdan:P80069 '[value in $2]' .

3. If the value in $a, $b etc. is not an appellation of some entity, like a concept term, then it seems to meet the condition 'a source of metadata is not a manifestation that is being described' (72.25.24.71), and the option is to record the value in $2 as Work: source consulted. In order to record data provenance, the metadata is treated as a Work. I'm not sure if this means reification in an RDF implementation. I'd imagine something like this in Turtle:

   <Entity> rdaproperty1 '[value in $a, $b etc.]' .
   <triple> a rdf:Statement;
        rdf:subject <Entity> ;
        rdf:predicate rdaproperty1 ;
        rdf:object '[value in $a, $b etc.]' ;
        rdaw:P10406 '[value in $2]' .

[AdamSchiff]

$2 may exist in the format, but I have never ever seen it used. I doubt there are more than a handful, if any, in our catalog or in OCLC. However, I guess we still need to map it.

Adam

Adam L. Schiff Principal Cataloger University of Washington Libraries Box 352900 Seattle, WA 98195-2900 aschiff @ uw.edu

---

From: Zhuo Pan @.> Sent: Friday, March 18, 2022 7:37:14 PM To: uwlib-cams/MARC2RDA @.> Cc: Subscribed @.***> Subject: Re: [uwlib-cams/MARC2RDA] Consistent/Repeated Subfield Appendix (Issue #326)

I was looking at 043 and run into the reappearing $2 issue. I thought it should qualify as a repeated subfield so I post things here.

$2 MARC code for the source of vocabulary. I think in most cases the value in $2 is mapped to an identifier for a vocabulary encoding scheme (VES). I see 3 options in RDA.

1. Specify the VES in an application profile. (39.13.99.59)

2. If the value in $a, $b etc. is an appellation of some entity, which often seems to be an entity related to the manifestation being described, record the value in $2 as Nomen: scheme of nomenhttp://www.rdaregistry.info/Elements/n/#P80069. In Turtle it might look like this:

rdaproperty1 . rdaproperty:hasAppellation . rdan:P80068 '[value in $a, $b etc.]' ; rdan:P80069 '[value in $2]' . 1. If the value in $a, $b etc. is not an appellation of some entity, like a concept term, then it seems to meet the condition 'a source of metadata is not a manifestation that is being described' (72.25.24.71), and the option is to record the value in $2 as Work: source consulted. In order to record data provenance, the metadata is treated as a Work. I'm not sure if this means reification in an RDF implementation. I'd imagine something like this in Turtle: rdaproperty1 '[value in $a, $b etc.]' . a rdf:Statement; rdf:subject ; rdf:predicate rdaproperty1 ; rdf:object '[value in $a, $b etc.]' ; rdaw:P10406 '[value in $2]' . — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or unsubscribe. Triage notifications on the go with GitHub Mobile for iOS or Android. You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.Message ID: ***@***.***>

[CECSpecialistI]

I think $2 does belong in this appendix. I'm hoping we can map it consistently across MARC fields