The Library of Congress >> Especially for Librarians and Archivists >> Standards

MARC Standards

HOME >> MARC Development >> Discussion Paper List


MARC DISCUSSION PAPER NO. 2006-DP08

DATE: May 31, 2006
REVISED:

NAME: Techniques for incorporation of Former Headings into MARC 21 Authority Records

SOURCE: Program for Cooperative Cataloging, Task Group on the Function of the Authority File

SUMMARY: This paper discusses the incorporation of former heading information into MARC 21 authority records, in cases where the former heading might not be considered a valid or useful reference, to facilitate the locating of instances of the former headings in bibliographic records that may need to be corrected. Several techniques are discussed for supporting this requirement to hold former headings in authority records.

KEYWORDS: Former headings (AD); Note fields (AD); Field 683 (AD); Field 885 (AD)

RELATED: 2006-DP03

STATUS/COMMENTS:
5/31/06 - Made available to the MARC 21 community for discussion.

06/24/06 - Results of the MARC Advisory Committee discussion - Participants agreed that a proposal to use the 4XX fields for former heading information should be presented with the following:


DISCUSSION PAPER No. 2006-DP08: Techniques for incorporation of Former Headings in MARC 21 Authority Records

1. INTRODUCTION

In 2003, the Final Report of the Task Group on the Function of the Authority File was presented to the Standing Committee on Standards of the Program for Cooperative Cataloging. In it, the Task Group cited several instances where it is not valid to make a reference from an invalid former form of a heading because of possible conflicts with other references, possible misleading of users, and duplication of references upon normalization. The cataloger was instructed to delete the former form from the record. The recommendation in the report was that these former headings should be recorded in a note field to enhance the ability of correcting these former headings in bibliographic records. The following specific circumstances where a note would be useful were described in the Report. The illustrative examples in sections 2.1-2.3 include a new Authority format note field (specified as 683 and structured like existing 682) that is described later in Section 2.4, along with other techniques for carrying the information about the former heading.

2. DISCUSSION

2.1 - Cancelled headings (Recommendation #8)

When an authority record is deleted from a shared authority file, the record number of the deleted record is usually recorded in a record number field (e.g., 010$z, 016$z, or 035$z) of the related authority record that is being kept. However, the form of the cancelled heading, when it differs, is not necessarily recorded in the authority record, making it difficult to identify the headings in the bibliographic records in the catalog that might need correction. The task group recommended that the cancelled heading be recorded in a note field in the record that is being kept, if the cancelled heading differs from the kept heading. This will facilitate the task of identifying headings that might need correcting in the bibliographic file.

Examples:

010 ## $a[LCCN]$z[cancelled LCCN]
100 1# $aPhilips, Gina,$d1958-
400 1# $aPhilips, G. E.$q(Gina Evelyn), $d1958-
683 ## $iFormer heading (cancelled)$aPhilips, Gina E.$d20060101

010 ## $a[LCCN]$z[cancelled LCCN]
110 2# $aAuschwitz (Concentration camp)
683 ## $iFormer subject heading (cancelled)$aAuschwitz (Poland : Concentration camp)$d20060101

2.2 - Former name headings (Recommendation #10)

In some cases a former heading is not a candidate for becoming a reference because of conventions associated with the name authority file or the cataloging rules for forming references. In addition, when a former cataloging rule heading is not a valid reference for the current cataloging rules, catalogers are usually instructed not to make linking references. Some of the specific cases are the following.

The task group recommended that these headings be recorded in a note field to facilitate the task of finding headings in bibliographic records that may need to be corrected.

Examples:

100 1# $aHaase, Felix,$db. 1742
683 ## $iFormer heading (date added to resolve conflict)$aHaase, Felix $d20060101

110 2# $aBrown and Sons (London, England)
683 ## $iFormer heading (qualifier added to resolve conflict)$aBrown and Sons$d20060101

130 #0 $aArchives of toxicology.$pSupplement
683 ## $iFormer heading (normalized to same string as new)$aArchives of toxicology : Supplement$d20060101
[The old form normalizes to the same string as the new form as they differ only by punctuation.]

100 1# $aParra, Manuel
683 ## $iFormer heading (contained typographical error)$aParra, Manual$d20060101

100 1# $aWarhol, Andy,$d1928-1987
683 ## $i
Former heading (had open date)$aWarhol, Andy, 1928-$d20060101

2.3 - Former subject headings (Recommendation #12)

Another specialized case that would benefit from this field is for references not allowed in the subject authority records because of thesaurus rules. For example the Library of Congress' Subject Cataloging Manual states that former subject headings are added as references, except in the following situations.

The Task Group recommended that the former headings to which the above exceptions applied be retained in a note field to facilitate the ability to correct headings found in bibliographic records.

Examples:

151 ## $aVenezuela$xPolitics and government$y1974-1999
683 ## $iFormer heading (open date in period subdivision)$aVenezuela--Politics and government--1974-$d20060101

150 ## $aAfrican American women domestics
683 ## $iFormer heading (offensive)$aMammies$d20060101

2.4 - Techniques for carrying former heading information

2.4.1 - Definition of a new Authority format note field

The Task Group recommended that a note field be defined to contain former heading information in the cases described above. Defining a new note field for former heading provides a unique place in which to record former headings, enabling more automated library catalog amendment processes. The Task Group rejected use of field 667 (Nonpublic note) because it is currently coded to hold several different types of data. They thought that field 688 (Application history note) could be redefined to hold former headings information but it also had mixed use in the past. One alternative is to define a special "former heading" note field in the authority format, structured similarly to the 682 field to enable the isolation of the heading string for matching purposes. Separate iterations of field 683 would hold one former heading and thus, field 683 should be defined as repeatable.

The discussion in January 2006 indicated that the date of the change might be a useful data element in the note field. Recording the old record number in the field was mentioned but not generally thought to be useful. In some systems the number would remain the same. As noted above some cancelled control numbers can be recorded in 110 $z, 016 $z, or 035 $z.

Field 683 - Former heading (R)

Indicators
First indicator - Undefined
Second indicator - Undefined

Subfield codes
$a - Former heading (NR)
$d - Date of change (NR)
$i - Explanatory text (R)
$6 - Linkage (NR)
$8 - Field link and sequence number (R)

2.4.2 - Use of already defined Authority format 4XX fields

The former heading could be carried in the already defined 4XX see from reference tracing fields with a value in the $w to indicate the status of the heading. Several existing positions in the $w control subfield could be used, but the most convenient would be $w/0.

$w/0 - Special relationship

Current values:

Add:

100 1# $aPhilips, Gina,$d1958-
400 1# $wj$iFormer heading (cancelled)$aPhilips, Gina E.

110 2# $aBrown and Sons (London, England)
410 2# $wj$iFormer heading (qualifier added to resolve conflict)$aBrown and Sons

130 #0 $aArchives of toxicology.$pSupplement
430 #0 $wj$iFormer heading (normalized to same string as new)$aArchives of toxicology :$pSupplement

100 1# $aWarhol, Andy,$d1928-1987
400 1# $wj$iFormer heading (had open date)$aWarhol, Andy,$d1928-

151 ## $aVenezuela$xPolitics and government$y1974-1999
451 ## $wj$iFormer heading (open date in period subdivision)$aVenezuela$xPolitics and government$y1974-

The instructions for the $i reference instruction phrase would need to be revised to accommodate this new use. A subfield for the date would need to be identified although there are very few subfields left in heading fields that could be defined across the various heading fields.

Alternatively, the following $w positions could be used. If one of these is used, any previous $w positions would need to be carried.

2.4.3 Definition of a new Authority format field

Another approach would be to define for the Authority format a new field similar to the 886 Foreign MARC Information Field in the Bibliographic format. This field could be defined as follows:

Field 885 - Invalid heading field (R)

Indicators
First indicator - Undefined
Second indicator - Undefined

Subfield codes
$a - Tag of invalid field (R)
$b - Content of invalid field, starting with the indicator values and containing full content designation of the invalid field (R)
$d - Date of change (NR)
$i - Explanatory text (R)

The recommended order for the above subfields would be $d, $i, $a, $b to avoid mixing these subfields with those occurring in the heading string.

100 1# $aPhilips, Gina,$d1958-
885 ## $d20060101$iFormer heading (cancelled)$a100$b1#$aPhilips, Gina E.

110 2# $aBrown and Sons (London, England)
885 ## $d20060101$iFormer heading (qualifier added to resolve conflict)$a110$b2#$aBrown and Sons

100 1# $aWarhol, Andy,$d1928-1987
885 ## $d20060101$iFormer heading (had open date)$a100$b1#$aWarhol, Andy,$d1928-

151 ## $aVenezuela$xPolitics and government$y1974-1999
885 ## $d20060101$iFormer heading (open date in period subdivision)$a151$b##$aVenezuela$xPolitics and government$y1974-

130 #0 $aArchives of toxicology.$pSupplement
885 ## $d20060101$iFormer heading (normalized to same string as new)$a130$b#0$aArchives of toxicology :$pSupplement

3. QUESTIONS

  1. Is it important to have the full content designation of the former invalid heading?
  2. Are there other situations where this technique might be used?
  3. Is there interest in having the date of the change in the field? This would be more difficult for the 4XX fields since almost all of the subfields have been used.
  4. How will the field be coded, by hand or machine?

HOME >> MARC Development >> Discussion Paper List

The Library of Congress >> Especially for Librarians and Archivists >> Standards
( 12/21/2010 )
Legal | External Link Disclaimer Contact Us