-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 16
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Add 008 field in for machine-processable dates #1151
Comments
I agree that an encoded date field is necessary, but 033 isn't exactly correct for this. The 033 is not for the date of creation of an item but rather it encodes what is stated in the 518 field, which is for performance notes - in libraries, generally when a CD was recorded, in our context generally when a score was used in a performance (somewhat rare). See here for an explanation of standard MARC practice from Yale: https://web.library.yale.edu/cataloging/music/033field The sort of encoded date that we need is recorded in the 008 and this information is generally derived from the 260 (264), so a connection between the two fields is an established one in MARC. There are several options for position 06 but I think we can limit it to: Position 06 includes the possibility of detailed dates that include months and days (e, "detailed date"), but I don't think this level of granularity is needed for retrieval - as Andrew says, we just want "between year XXXX and year YYYY". So I suggest skipping months and days. Unknowns are recorded with u. So adapting and expanding on the examples above, in the 008 it would look like this (with some links to the Princeton catalog, for example of usage in libraries): Circa 1745 Possibly 1740? Before 1748 After 1748 Note: Princeton encodes just a single year in before/after statements ; not sure if we want that: Middle of the 18th century using RISM standard 1740-1760 November 11, 1973 1750 to 1799 (estimated by the cataloger) 1738 to 1743 (based on evidence in the source) Sometime in the 1740s Between 1740 and 1749 Sometime in the 1800s No date A span of 300 years Comments: In my opinion this field should be required, otherwise people won't fill it out. We really need to encourage people to date their sources more often. It is comfortable to say "s.d." but surely we can figure out at least reasonable centuries based on archival context, institutional history, composer life dates, etc. Perhaps we can come up with standardized estimates that people can apply to make it feel less rigid, for example 1600-1900 or so. |
I'm not completely convinced by the Yale application note; the MARC21 description just says it's a date/time of an event, with no additional semantics. The examples in the documentation seem to indicate that it can be for any material. There are also at least two examples where a 033 does not have a corresponding 518. So I don't think those should be hard-and-fast reasons to not use it. For 008, I'm not particularly crazy about using I'm also not particularly keen showing I envision a field with a fixed number of spaces indicated by dashes. Typing in the field would fill the spaces from left to right; no more, no less. The field would not allow any more than four digits; backspacing would clear a digit and replace it with a dash. We can, of course, transform the dashes to We also need to be clear that There is a difference between We could make it a guideline policy that the field was required, but we would still need it to be optional when saving a record, because people editing a record would need to be able to save it without filling in a date for an item they don't have to hand. |
At the 10 November meeting we agreed to use the 008 field for storing machine-readable dates, so I think we can move forward with this. I'll change the title and description above to avoid confusion. One thing left to decide is how to enter the value for position 06 of the 008 field. |
I was thinking the cataloger would enter the 06 (see above for my reduced list) from a dropdown list but now I wonder if we could simplify this in the Muscat application of 008 and agree to just 2 choices, perhaps: Would it be possible for an 06 to be added automatically by Muscat, based on whether a single year or a range of years is entered? |
I recently came across the 046 field, which seems like it might be a better fit for this. The advantages of 046 over 008 are:
|
BTW 008 is already used for export, s. https://github.com/rism-international/muscat-maintenance/blob/8fb007f63560f2ab0a9ad4c0cacbc5e5b8e104ab/export/sources_to_bsb.rb#L30 |
Yes; the idea would be to actually add the dates of the record in there, rather than the 'created' date. |
Sure! Thanks for spotting it. I don't quite see the range of current applications in library catalogs as 008 (I checked Princeton above, Northwestern, and the DNB and found only a few, and can't generalize), but the 046 is clear enough, and our application of it would be clear enough, that I don't see any misunderstandings. |
Keeping well-structured data in 046 could mean that we could automatically add it (or an extract of it) to the 008, but I don't think we could go the other way around. |
Edit: The decision (10.11.2021) is to implement this as an 008 field; see the discussion below.
For RISM Online, we are parsing the
260 $c
statement to try and extract numeric dates for sources so that we can do proper date range searches (e.g., "Find me sources between year XXXX and year YYYY"). In order to do ranges, it is a requirement that we use numeric data so that arithmetic can be done in the search system.The
260 $c
field is uncontrolled, which makes it difficult to extract dates when attempting to parse this to numbers. We are using some advanced heuristics, but problems remain, and we are reaching the point where correcting some dates causes other corrections to start failing.Some examples of various systemic problems include:
171784-1799
,1846-01-05{8'
Ende 17. Jh.
,23 gennaio 1973
Año IX
[s/d/]
[s..d]
,(n.d.)
,05-1836-1853
,1845-1874-03-30
"BONN 14.XI 79"
," 23.X.76| Reiner Bredemeyer"
... and many, many others. This is leading to many problems in RISM Online, where we have extreme dates (e.g., 1871 BC, or 171784 CE).
It would be really useful if we had a field that could handle numeric-only dates, and validate these values. I recognize that this is likely not the goal for
260 $c
, since cataloguers will need the flexibility to capture a date statement as written.I would like to request that we re-introduce the
033
field (Date/Time and Place of an Event), but with the requirement that it contains a standard formatted date. The MARC specification includes a format for how incomplete dates should be encoded as well. This would be restricted to allowing onlyyyyymmdd
values.Validation on this field would restrict the values to only allow digits and the
-
character. While this field would be optional, cataloguers would be encouraged to fill this field in with a value if any datable evidence for the source allows.The
$a
on the 031 field is repeatable, allowing for a single date or a range of dates. We should restrict this to no more than two -- a "start" (or a single date) and an optional "end" for dates that may be a range.In the case of a single date, the first field indicator should be a
0
. In the case that the optional end date is provided, the first field indicator should be a2
.A few examples:
None of the hyphens should be omitted in the MARC source, but they could optionally be omitted in the data entry field.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: