Heading Use Code expansion abandoned

From  View message header detail Jacqueline Radebaugh <jrad@loc.gov> 
Sent  Friday, May 9, 2008 1:16 pm
To  Sherman Clarke <sherman.clarke@nyu.edu> 
Cc  Jacqueline Radebaugh <jrad@loc.gov> 
Subject  Re: MARBI Discussion Paper 2008-DP01

Dear Sherman:

Thank you very much for your prompt response.  It sounds like you are super busy!

If you like, I can definitely draft something up for your review.  We could include some information about how RDA may solve this current problem and see what the committee has to say about it.  I have been working with the RDA MARC  Working Group in drafting up the RDA/MARC proposal for this summer and I do not believe that anything like you have described is being proposed during this first line of papers.  However, of course, I have not been able to keep totally up with the RDA development--only with how it may affect MARC.

Please let me know if you would like me to write up a first draft.  I realize that you are super busy at NYU!  I hope that everything goes well with your implementations.

Thank you so very much for your help!


Jackie Radebaugh


Jacqueline Radebaugh

Library of Congress
Network Development & MARC Standards Office
101 Independence Ave., S.E.
Washington, DC  20540-4402
Phone:  +1-202-707-1153
FAX:     +1-202-707-0115
E-Mail:  jrad@loc.gov

>>> Sherman Clarke <sherman.clarke@nyu.edu> 05/09/08 10:53 AM >>>

I am just back from the ARLIS/NA conference where we art catalogers did have some discussion of the proposed Heading Use Code for added entry. As you may know, the CPSO descriptive cataloging specialists discussed loosening the cords on H405 relative to Group Two entities, and I believe plan on issuing such instructions with the next round of DCM Z1 updates.

We art catalogers have long been frustrated by the NAF/SAF division. At this moment in RDA and MARC developments, I don't know if it makes sense to muddy the waters by adding ambiguity to heading use codes. I'm assuming that in the not too distant future, our cataloging records will indicate relationships explicitly by an attribute rather than watching whether it's a 6XX or 7XX. So we'd have an entity authority file and you'd use the name of the entity in your "bib" record and indicate that the relationship was exhibition venue.

Today is the last day of Geac Advance operations here, and next week we start our technical services freeze, moving toward Aleph implementation in July. You can imagine the distraction. I'll get back to you next week with more info, recognizing your May 19th deadline.


----- Original Message -----
From: Jacqueline Radebaugh <jrad@loc.gov>
Date: Friday, May 9, 2008 10:01 am
Subject: MARBI Discussion Paper 2008-DP01
To: sherman.clarke@nyu.edu
Cc: Jacqueline Radebaugh <jrad@loc.gov>

> Dear Sherman:

>  NDMSO has been busy working on writing proposals and discussion
> papers for the annual 2008 MARBI meetings.

>  As you know, MARBI wanted a proposal to be written for Discussion
> Paper 2008-DP01:  Identifying headings that are appropriate as added
> entries, but are not used as bibliographic main entries.  Do you have
> any time to write this up for us?  If not, please simply let me know
> and I can write it.  However, I thought that since you are its
> original author, you may want to do it.

>  Please simply let me know either way.  If you do decide to write the
> proposal, could you please send it to me no later than May 19th?  Our
> goal is to have the papers out before the beginning of June.

>  Thank you so very much for your help!

>  Best wishes,

>  Jackie Radebaugh