More MARC issues: 700

So, okay, here’s another puzzle for the catalogers.

A 700 (or 7xx in general) could be an ‘analytic’, representing one element that’s the contents of the item cataloged. OR could just represent a contributor (who isn’t ‘main entry’) to the work. An ‘analytic’ will mention the particular part of the work contained, generally in controlled form.

Now, I want to treat this differently depending on if it’s an analytic or not. For instance, just plain contributor names should be listed as ‘contributors’, along with links to collocate on controlled form of name. But if it’s an analytic, I STILL want to seperate out the person’s actual name as ‘contributor’ (and let you collocate in general just by their name).  But I ALSO  say what part of the work they contributed, and give a link to look up other records for that analytic entry (the part).

So 7xx field have second indicator two. Which oddly gives you two possibilities. You can note that it definitely is an analytic entry. Or you can note that you don’t know either way. Very strangely there is no way to even note that you definitely know it’s not! Second indicator blank just means “no information.” So it might still be an analytic.

Of course, even if the indicators gave you a way to record that it definitely wasn’t, no doubt we’d still have plenty of records whose second indicator gave no information.

So….   how can I tell if a 7xx is an ‘analytic’ or not?  Can I assume that it’s an analytic if and only if subfield t is present? Are there any cases where it is an analytic but there’s no subfield t, or where it’s not an analytic but there is a subfield t?


The 730 field specifically is even worse. I don’t know if there’s any way for me to tell if it’s an analytic or not?  I mean, if second indicator is 2, it is. And if second indicator is blank… absolutely no way to tell.

What the heck could a 730 be other than an analytic? Anyone have examples?


11 thoughts on “More MARC issues: 700”

  1. John–Yes, you are right. You can’t tell unless the cataloger choose second indicator 2. And for MARC older than the mid-90’s, it can be more confusing.

    700 with a subfield t should indicate an analytic.

    730 is more likely to indicate that the main entry is an analytic of the title in the 730.

    245 04 |a The 12 seasons of Vermont / |c photographs by Vermont Life contributing photographers ; text by a selection of Vermont’s finest writers.
    246 3_ |a Twelve seasons of Vermont
    260 __ |a Montpelier, Vt. : |b Vermont Life Magazine, |c c2004.
    730 0_ |a Vermont life.
    730 0 Life magazine.

    730 ^2 is more likely to mean that the title is included in the large work:

    100 1 ‡aMa, Yo-Yo,‡d1955-‡4itr
    245 10 ‡aNew impossibilities‡h[sound recording] /‡cYo-Yo Ma and The Silk Road Ensemble.
    505 00 ‡tArabian waltz /‡rRabih Abou-Khalil –‡tNight of the flying horses / Osvaldo Golijov –‡tGalloping horses /‡rHai-Hai Huang –‡tSongs of eight unruly tipsy poets / Zhou Long –‡tShristi / Sandeep Das –‡tSilent city /‡rKayhan Kalhor –‡tAmbush from ten sides (Chinese traditional) –‡tVocussion.
    730 02 ‡aAmbush from ten sides.
    730 02 ‡aVocussion.

    Hope this helps!

  2. Thanks Doug, that does help, but can I ask you some more questions?

    I still don’t understand what those 730’s are even doing there in your first example1 “Vermont Life”. “Live Magazine”. What do those actually represent, why are there at all? Are they just ‘related works’?

    Also, thinking more, I’m not sure it’s even true to say that a 700 with a $t is likely to be an analytic. Can’t it also be a related work entered under author-title? Not a contained work, but just a work related for some other reason? But maybe it’s not ‘likely’ to be that, but unless it’s exceedingly rare for it to be that, it’s not safe for the software to assume it — and I don’t THINK it’s exceedingly rare?

    I think I am coming up with a way to handle this. Not as nice as i’d like, but I think I am getting an idea of what the best that can be done with MARC is.

  3. I think journal titles in 730 blank usually are related entries that show that the content came from the journal or is related in some way (such as an entry for Consumer Reports the magazine on a record for one of their buying guides). I don’t normally get stuff like this, though.

    In video cataloging, we often use 700 name-title related entries for the work something is based on or adapted from and I think it is used for other types of adapations. Locally, we used to just use 700 name when the title of the original was the same as the film, but after a while we decided that was a bad idea and started using the full heading even though it makes it look like there are two records rather than one in our browse listings (our catalog counts headings instead of records for some reason). We have used 730 similarly for remakes. Here we really need relator codes as there are a variety of relationships.

  4. Jonathan

    If it helps you any, cataloger’s are creating these access points based upon something else that is documented in other descriptive elements of the record. Descriptive cataloging records based on on AACR2 and (earlier standards probably) usually insist that an access point 7XX-74X be created based upon controlling information that is presented elsewhere in the record.

    Another way to put it is that if something is an analytic or relation is tied up in the notes (5XX) or other transcription points such as the title, imprint, or statement of responsibility that says whether or not it is an analytic or relation.

    Use of the 700 $a $t combination of name title doesn’t indicate that something is actually contained in a work. So for example the practice of referring to earlier editions of a work.

    100 ## Smith, Joe.
    245 10 EU law / $c by Joe Smith.
    250 ## 2nd ed.
    500 ## Rev. ed of: EC law / by Joe Smith. 1st ed. 1990.
    500 ## Includes the text of the Treaty of Lisbon.
    700 1# Smith, Joe $t EU law.
    730 #2 Treaty on European Union $d (1992). $k Protocols, etc., $d 2007 Dec. 13.

    The way I look at it I kind of “pair” the fields when I am creating access points for full level records.

    “500 ## Rev. ed of: EC law / by Joe Smith. 1st ed. 1990.” justifies “700 1# Smith, Joe $t EU law.” Which is a related work.

    “500 ## Includes the text of the Treaty of Lisbon.” begets 730 #2 Treaty on European Union $d (1992). $k Protocols, etc., $d 2007 Dec. 13.

    Which is actually contained within the resource.

    As a caveat: This sort of practice is going the way of the dodo’s (it is kind of inane in a certain way, and most certainly a manual environment relic, and if everything is being explicitly coded correctly in the indicator or relator term, you don’t need it ). Some of the newer application profiles for Core and Standard records (PCC & CONSER) avoid including the pairing, instead emphasizing just the access points. Serial records always have had explicit relations encoded into the field data look at: 76X-78X fields.

    Looking back at Doug’s example:

    245 04 |a The 12 seasons of Vermont / |c photographs by Vermont Life contributing photographers ; text by a selection of Vermont’s finest writers.
    246 3_ |a Twelve seasons of Vermont
    260 __ |a Montpelier, Vt. : |b Vermont Life Magazine, |c c2004.
    730 0_ |a Vermont life.
    730 0 Life magazine.

    either 245 $c photographs by Vermont Life contributing photographers or 260 $c Vermont Life Magazine,


    730 0# Vermont life.
    730 0# Life magazine.

    As an aside, series works the same way and it is why the 440 field was always a problem for many, it read as both the documentation/transcription of the series name and the access point. Splitting into the 490/830 makes a bit more sense for a lot of people in that they know the 490 is where I transcribe, then the 830 is where I put in the access point.

    The long and the short. If you want to know if something is actually contained within the resource you are describing, depend on the 70X-74X #2. Its the only thing you got going. Unless you can figure out a way for your system to be able to interpret the text contained within the transcription fields, which seems to me might be a problem that is unsolvable in a reliable way.

  5. Okay, so here’s what my conclusion is. If it’s got second indicator 2, it’s an analytic, the work is contained in the item at hand, and the person mentioned in a 700 can be considered a ‘contributor’.

    Otherwise, if it’s got a $t (or is a 730), all we can say is the work mentioned/cited is a “related work”. We can’t know the nature of the relationship.

    So, okay, let’s say it’s a 700/711/710 without a $t, mentioning a person/organization/meeting. In MANY cases that named actor will be a ‘contributor’. But can that be assumed, or can a person be mentioned in a 700 without a $t without being a ‘contributor’, they’re just a ‘related person’?

    Any ideas?

  6. Yes, your final question is correct. For example, many times there will be a related 710, if a corporate body was somehow involved in the production of the work but was not the actual creator. Or a 700 could be there for a festschrift for the person being honored, but they had absolutely nothing to do with the content of the essays in the work.

    And for analytics, the base assumption that a 2 in the I2 means it is an analytic and a blank means it is not, as Sean explained above. After all, analytic added entry means that the work is contained the text you are cataloging, and that is fairly easy to determine if you’ve got it in your hands. And there are LOTS of reasons for an added entry that have nothing to do with being a contributor to the work.

  7. Thanks Melanie. That’s unfortunate — it means there’s no way to reliably even identify a typical 700 as a ‘contributor’ or not, we can’t even give the user a list of authors/contributors, or let the user reliably search for all works with a given person as a contributor.

    All we can do is provide a list of ‘related people’ (nature of relationship unknown unless $4 or $e is given, which it usually isn’t), and let the user search for “works which person X has some kind of relationship with.”

    This is kind of lame, isn’t it?

    The standard OPAC display which lists all 700’s as “contributors” is broken — not only does it usually list _related works_ (from name-title 700’s for instance) as ‘contributors’ (which obviously makes no sense), but it lists people that may or may not actually be ‘contributors’. Unfortunately, fixing this display to be no longer misleading… will make it just plain weird to the users.

    My project to try and make an OPAC display that actually uses the data in MARC to it’s full capacity and gives the user actually accurate and sensible information… is running into a buncha hitches.

  8. Jonathan,

    That pretty much sums it. The information about the nature of the relationship is often just buried in the notes or other parts of the description.

    The names of the 70X-74X field all start with “Added Entry”, not ‘Author’ or ‘Contributor’. The fields ends up in practice having a ton of other uses.

    80% of the cases its going to be an author or editor, but depending on the domain it might not be and then you are left grappling with the rest of the record to figure out why the added entry was added.

  9. Note that this applies to 100 too. 100 is “main entry”, not “author”. Although the ‘main entry’ at least, can, I _think_, be assumed to be a ‘contributor’ of some kind, by the rules of ‘main entry’. (Isn’t neccesarily an ‘author’ though, could be a ‘composer’ in some cases, for instance).

    But okay, here’s the weird thing. 700 has the $4 to specify, in coded form, the ‘relationship’ of the named person to the work at hand. But all these relationships assume the person IS a contributor, they are means of specifying exactly what the nature of the contribution was.

    But what if the 700 isn’t a contributor at all? Especially likely for a 700 name-title, which could just be referencing some related work (that is itself ‘title main entry’). But even without a name-title, Melanie has the great example of a name-only 700 being the person honored by a festschrift — not a contributor at all.

    There’s no way to use $4 role to specify that the person in a 700 isn’t a contributor at all, or to specify ANY relationship between a work cited in a 700 name-title and the item at hand. (All the $4 roles apply to a person not a work).

    This is a kind of weird omission, isn’t it? Am I missing something?

    So anyway, what I think I’m going to end up doing, is putting ALL names from 700 in a “Related People” display. And throw the 100 in there too, since we can’t really know the 100’s relationship to the item at hand either. (Use $4 or $e to specify the nature of the person’s relationship, if available). And throw ALL titles referenced in a 700 name-title in a “Related Works” display (along with 730s; also 776’s, and a few other 7xx’s).

    That’s pretty much all you can do with (mostly but not entirely AACR2) MARC without lying to the user, I think. (See “false promises” covered in an earlier blog entry).

    Next up, I’m going to have to figure out how to turn a 7xx into something that can be looked up against the database to find it’s target. Phew. time to pull out that green AACR2 binder, I knew there was a reason I kept it.

  10. Incidentally, I’d also add that the ONLY difference between a 700 name-title (or a 740) and a 787 has to do with whether AACR2 rules justify an “added entry” or not.

    But both can only be understood as “related works”.

    No doubt catalogers spend significant time deciding if something is a 700 or a 787, but I can’t figure out how the AACR2 rules that lead to some things going in 700 and others in 787 serve the the user at all — or how an ‘honest’ system would do anything different with a 700 name-title vs. a 787. The distinction seems to be a relic of the printed/card catalog, where it mattered whether a separate card was going to be printed or not. In an electronic world, it seems completely irrelevant.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s