On Sep 23, 2009, at 9:19 AM, Jonathan Rochkind wrote:
> Thanks! So $v, $x, $y, and $z should always get a "--" before them
> -- that's sufficient logic to do it 'right'? I guess an LCSH 6xx
> always needs an $a first, so I don't need to worry about if a $v or
> $x happens to come first, and shouldn't get a preceding "--".
> Should I do this only for 6xx with 2nd indicator 2 indicating LCSH,
> or do people generally just do this for all 6xx?
Our ancient hardcopy MARC 21 manual says the dash preceding any of
those subfields is a display constant, and there is no mention of
indicator-based display logic. So no need to worry about the
I suspect this is ISBD punctuation. If so, it's probably the only
ISBD punctuation that is, sensibly, not carried in the data.
On Sep 23, 2009, at 9:20 AM, Jonathan Rochkind wrote:
> Hey, and it occurs to me, in an HTML display, it might be better to
> use an actual em-dash than the traditional two hyphens too? Since
> the LC documentation just talks about "dash" -- two hyphens is how
> you approximate an em-dash in ascii of course, but we're not living
> in ascii anymore!
In fact, the old MARC 21 Format for Bibliographic Data print manual
uses the em-dash. I would agree that the "--" is legacy, probably
from the days of printing cards on impact printers with the old
Library of Congress print train.
If you go for the em-dash, it will be interesting to see how long it
takes for someone complain about the change from the double dashes.
> Tod Olson wrote:
>> Only for certain subfields:
>> Dash (-) that precedes a subdivision in an extended 600 subject
>> heading is not carried in the MARC record. It may be system
>> generated as a display constant associated with the content of
>> subfield $v, $x, $y, and $z.
>> From http://www.loc.gov/marc/bibliographic/bd600.html
>> On Sep 23, 2009, at 9:09 AM, Jonathan Rochkind wrote:
>>> Hi all, I'm writing some marc record display code, and I have a
>>> question about the 'right' way to display LCSH headings.
>>> LCSH headings are typically displayed with "--" between
>>> components. But looking at the MARC, it looks like the "--"
>>> punctuation isn't actually in the MARC field. (A rare instance
>>> where display punctuation isn't in the marc!).
>>> Is it correct for any LCSH 6xx field (which you know because the
>>> 2nd indicator is 0, right?), to add "--" between ALL present
>>> subfields on display? Do I have the right logic there?
>>> Thanks for any advice!