Thanks, Karen and Jon!
That's what I suspected, but I couldn't find anything on the web about the
thought process behind ignoring the 590 altogether. We'll likely end up using a
local version of the XSLT to map it the mods:note as you suggested. We simply
don't want this information to be lost in our MODS record as we, for example,
embed it inside a METS document.
--Joel
On May 19, 2011, at 12:34 PM, Karen Miller wrote:
Joel,
The 590 is indeed defined for local use, so whatever your local institution
uses it for should guide your mapping to MODS. There are some examples of
what it's used for on the OCLC Bibliographic Formats and Standards pages:
http://www.oclc.org/bibformats/en/5xx/590.shtm
Frequently it's used as a note that is specific to a local copy of an item.
If your institution uses it inconsistently, you might want to just map it to
mods:note.
Karen
Karen D. Miller
Monographic/Digital Projects Cataloger
Bibliographic Services Dept.
Northwestern University Library
Evanston, IL
k-mill...@northwestern.edu
847-467-3462
-Original Message-
From: Code for Libraries [mailto:CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU] On Behalf Of Jon
Stroop
Sent: Thursday, May 19, 2011 11:07 AM
To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU
Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] MARCXML to MODS: 590 Field
I'm going to guess that it's because 59x fields are defined for local use:
http://www.loc.gov/marc/bibliographic/bd59x.html
...but someone from LC should be able to confirm.
-Jon
--
Jon Stroop
Metadata Analyst
Firestone Library
Princeton University
Princeton, NJ 08544
Email: jstr...@princeton.edu
Phone: (609)258-0059
Fax: (609)258-0441
http://pudl.princeton.edu
http://diglib.princeton.edu
http://diglib.princeton.edu/ead
http://www.cpanda.org/cpanda
On 05/19/2011 11:45 AM, Richard, Joel M wrote:
Dear hive-mind,
Does anyone know why the Library of Congress-supplied MARCXML to MODS XSLT
[1] does not handle the MARC 590 Local Notes field? It seems to handle
everything else, not that I've done an exhaustive search... :)
Granted, I could copy/create my own XSLT and add this functionality in
myself, but I'm curious as to whether or not there's some logic behind this
decision to not include it. Logic that I would not naturally understand
since I'm not formally trained as a librarian.
Thanks!
--Joel
[1] http://www.loc.gov/standards/mods/v3/MARC21slim2MODS3-4.xsl
Joel Richard
IT Specialist, Web Services Department
Smithsonian Institution Libraries | http://www.sil.si.edu/
(202) 633-1706 | richar...@si.edu
