 |
 |
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]