[Heb-NACO] $2 edtf in 374
Heidi G Lerner
lerner at stanford.edu
Wed Aug 8 11:01:19 EDT 2012
Hi Bob,
I am referring in this e-mail to documentation from PCC "MARC 21 Fields and Codes Chart for Authority Records at-a-glance" and also “MARC 21 encoding to accommodate 046 and 3xx in NARs and SARs
Under 046 field the guidelines for RDA dates in EDTF would
translate 1939 or 1940 to [1939,1940]
and
translate 1949 or 1950 to [1949,1950]
under 374 we have
$sStart period (entity)
$tEnd period (entity)
I think that the string would be
374 .... $s[1939,1940],$t[1949,1950]$2EDTF
Best, Heidi
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert Talbott" <rtalbott at library.berkeley.edu>
To: "Hebrew Name Authority Funnel" <heb-naco at lists.service.ohio-state.edu>
Sent: Thursday, August 2, 2012 12:49:37 PM
Subject: [Heb-NACO] $2 edtf in 374
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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osu.edu/pipermail/heb-naco/attachments/20120808/bb23f49c/attachment.html>
More information about the Heb-naco
mailing list