[Heb-NACO] $2 edtf in 374

[Aaron Kuperman]

It would be more logical in the authority record to use the most accurate
date available, which is the Jewish date (a 12-13 month range), rather
than the Christian date which means you have a 24 month range, ESPECIALLY
IN THE AUTHORITY RECORD.  All it would take would be some non-traumatic
changes to the LCPS.  There MARC field could hold a different structured
data with an appropriate $2. Any program attempting to use the 046 data
could adjust.  While a non-western date would be a problem for users in
the 100 $d (used in bib and authority records), that isn't the case with
the 046 in authority record which isn't designed for being accessed by
users. --Aaron (definitely not an official position at LC, but this is the
time to ask)




On Thu, 2 Aug 2012, Robert Talbott wrote:


> Folks:
> 
> Q:
> 
> How are we handling Hebrew year dates converted to Gregorian "or" year 
> dates in fields other than the 046?  Specifically, I'm creating a record 
> for someone who was the "President du Tribunal Rabinique, 5700-5710."  
> Unfortunately, the specific side of the Gregorian divide is not given 
> for either of these years, thus 5700-5710 recombobulates to 1939 or 
> 1940-1949 or 1950.  Per the DCMZ for 046 (which theoretically should be 
> applicable for other non-046 fields), dates like this should follow edtf 
> formatting instead of  ISO 8601.
> 
> 374  President du Tribunal Rabinique $s [1939,1940] $t [1949,1950] $2 edtf
> 
> Sadly, the $2 is recognized in the 374 as only applying to the $a 
> portion of the field.
> 
> My questions:
> 
> 1) Since I cannot include $2 edtf, are edtf-style dates forbidden?
> 
> 2) If "Yes"  is the response to #1, then how should the 1939 or 
> 1940-1949-1950 fiasco be expressed?
> 
> Thanks in advance,
> 
> Befuddled in Berkeley
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Heb-naco mailing list
> Heb-naco at lists.service.ohio-state.edu
> https://lists.service.ohio-state.edu/mailman/listinfo/heb-naco
> 

Aaron Wolfe Kuperman
Library of Congress, ABA USPL, Law Cataloging Section

This is NOT an official communication from the Library of Congress.