Steven Arakawa wrote: > Kevin, you're right--thanks for pointing this out. The example would have > been helped with an additional 3xx for the primary content/media/carrier > type. However, I still think the fields themselves could be translated into > more comprehensible terms in the OPAC, especially if labels were > assigned.
I agree that more context in the examples in MARC documentation would make things clearer. But I don't totally agree with you that "the fields themselves could be translated ..." Rather, I think that they SHOULD be translated (and/or turned into icons, etc.). The intent of the RDA terms in these fields is not to display them to the public, but to identify the attributes in the metadata. Public display should be *based on* the metadata, but not necessarily *literally reproduce* the metadata. Kevin M. Randall Principal Serials Cataloger Northwestern University Library k...@northwestern.edu (847) 491-2939 Proudly wearing the sensible shoes since 1978!
