Mapping Expressions Table Implementation Misc. Q&A

[CECSpecialistI]

We might run into non-workflow related questions (about mappings, etc.) as we're implementing the Mapping Expressions Table. Let's add them here :)

• Mapping expression categories

[SitaKB]

rdae:P20216: In spreadsheet 008
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/14GtYCqPEDPx34FEcy0qxsJ5ItRPXUutPFRUiNsNW3WU/edit?gid=381351742#gid=381351742&range=353:357
Kolom AE has a not about rdae:P20216 is that correct. Kolom Y has the RDA registry uri for P20317
Same with rdae:P20318:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/14GtYCqPEDPx34FEcy0qxsJ5ItRPXUutPFRUiNsNW3WU/edit?gid=381351742#gid=381351742&range=122:122
Idem with rdae:P20572:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1oc5-0jKaihlwLiUnGU81esfARqJaoeuenXCAlFP8jw0/edit?gid=1566239069#gid=1566239069&range=121:124

[CECSpecialistI]

I'm not sure where the notes in column AE about the RDA to MARC mapping came from or why we need them. I think we can probably go ahead and delete them?

[tmqdeborah]

I agree that we could probably go ahead and delete the "From RDA to MARC mapping" notes in column AE of the 008 mapping spreadsheet, since they don't seem very helpful and are sometimes confusing (wrong?)

[lake44me]

I did a few this afternoon, but I'm not sure I put the right thing in the tabs for the properties. If I think a tag/subfield could be mapped to an expression property but it isn't, I put "not mapped" and a note about the status of the tag/subfield. In one case there was a row marked "Phase 2" with suggested mapping and I put that in the notes. Was I supposed to re-do the mapping to reflect the rdae property?

In the assignment tab, I put "Done" to indicate I had searched on the property and checked the suggested tags and any others that came up in the search, and noted the status under the appropriate tab (whether mapped or not). I did rdae:P20218 place of capture, rdae:P20004 date of capture, and rdae:P20217 capture information.

[tmqdeborah]

@lake44me,
What you have done looks really good.

• "not mapped" is correct for the if the Mapping expression categories spreadsheet provides a MARC field/subfield and a mapping spreadsheet does not have that mapping
• adding the note for the 518$d in the Mapping expression categories was a great idea
• I don't think that we should make any changes to the mapping spreadsheets, at this point, especially if we are going to create a Finding and Mapping table for an affected element; but maybe we should discuss this at the next meeting
  • it would also mean that you would have to indicate that the change needs to be coded, etc.
• If you say something is "not mapped" or add a Note about the mapping spreadsheet, please add the link to the mapping spreadsheet anyway (e.g., 518$d
• if a field in the MRC field column does not have a corresponding mapping spreadsheet, please enter "no spreadsheet" (e.g., Place of capture >> 387$i -- no spreadsheet is available for 387)

[CECSpecialistI]

Transferred from another discussion from @xlli-2017 from last month:
I am trying to do the assignment after today's meeting, but could not figure out this step:
"Enter the field and subfield labels into the MARC field tag column, and hyperlink with link to range from mapping spreadsheets."

Where is the Googlesheet that I can enter the information?

[CECSpecialistI]

This question was a good one and I think we covered it during the meeting on 2026-01-08. I will add more information to the instructions to make this clearer.

[JianPLee]

I'm mostly done with P20071 Note on Expression. There is one potential mapping to 355, but the 355 mapping has status as "Phase II." What should I do in case like this? Where should I note them if a mapping is not complete?