Thanks, Karen and Jon!

That's what I suspected, but I couldn't find anything on the web about the thought process behind ignoring the 590 altogether. We'll likely end up using a local version of the XSLT to map it the mods:note as you suggested. We simply don't want this information to be lost in our MODS record as we, for example, embed it inside a METS document.

--Joel


On May 19, 2011, at 12:34 PM, Karen Miller wrote:

> Joel,
> 
> The 590 is indeed defined for local use, so whatever your local institution
> uses it for should guide your mapping to MODS. There are some examples of
> what it's used for on the OCLC Bibliographic Formats and Standards pages:
> 
> http://www.oclc.org/bibformats/en/5xx/590.shtm
> 
> Frequently it's used as a note that is specific to a local copy of an item.
> If your institution uses it inconsistently, you might want to just map it to
> mods:note.
> 
> Karen
> 
> Karen D. Miller
> Monographic/Digital Projects Cataloger
> Bibliographic Services Dept.
> Northwestern University Library
> Evanston, IL 
> [log in to unmask]
> 847-467-3462
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Code for Libraries [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Jon
> Stroop
> Sent: Thursday, May 19, 2011 11:07 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] MARCXML to MODS: 590 Field
> 
> I'm going to guess that it's because 59x fields are defined for local use:
> 
> http://www.loc.gov/marc/bibliographic/bd59x.html
> 
> ...but someone from LC should be able to confirm.
> -Jon
> 
> -- 
> Jon Stroop
> Metadata Analyst
> Firestone Library
> Princeton University
> Princeton, NJ 08544
> 
> Email: [log in to unmask]
> Phone: (609)258-0059
> Fax: (609)258-0441
> 
> http://pudl.princeton.edu
> http://diglib.princeton.edu
> http://diglib.princeton.edu/ead
> http://www.cpanda.org/cpanda
> 
> 
> 
> On 05/19/2011 11:45 AM, Richard, Joel M wrote:
>> Dear hive-mind,
>> 
>> Does anyone know why the Library of Congress-supplied MARCXML to MODS XSLT
> [1] does not handle the MARC 590 Local Notes field? It seems to handle
> everything else, not that I've done an exhaustive search... :)
>> 
>> Granted, I could copy/create my own XSLT and add this functionality in
> myself, but I'm curious as to whether or not there's some logic behind this
> decision to not include it. Logic that I would not naturally understand
> since I'm not formally trained as a librarian.
>> 
>> Thanks!
>> --Joel
>> 
>> [1] http://www.loc.gov/standards/mods/v3/MARC21slim2MODS3-4.xsl
>> 
>> 
>> Joel Richard
>> IT Specialist, Web Services Department
>> Smithsonian Institution Libraries | http://www.sil.si.edu/
>> (202) 633-1706 | [log in to unmask]