2021-10-20 Metadata meeting notes

The ticket writer is correct, this is technically true: https://www.loc.gov/marc/authority/ad024.html

In AS 3.0, record identifier is a required field (correctly), but only 024$a maps there (AS code). If we were to recommend a change, the logic would be:

If no 024$a, then use 024$0 as identifier; if no 024$0 either, then use 024$1. If 024 exists but none of ${a,1,2} are present, reject the import

However, this is an edgy edge case; I’d suggest we state the above but not this is not a development priority. However, it is probably an easy fix for someone looking to dip a toe into pushing code. (kws)

The MARC spec for the 008 position 15-17 points to this MARC country code list. 

However, when serializing to MARC, AS finds this data by looking up the country listing for the repository, and then finding the iso 3166 country code from a local controlled value list (country_iso_3166).  

ISO3166 is not remotely equivalent to the MARC list.  

So the ticket writer is correct that the wrong value for the Netherlands is getting into their MARC export.  (This is avoided in the US because of a special exception that places the xxu country in all US-American records.)

One could tell the ticket writer to edit (i.e. break) the local iso 3166 controlled value list to map to the correct MARC Country code for the Netherlands.  This however would make the EAD export invalid, since EAD points to iso 3166.  

One could also suggest to the ticket writer to do some local post-export processing for theis MARC records (which we do here at Columbia for similar issues).  However, this presupposes a fair bit of technical knowledge and access to the various implicated systems. And it is brittle.  

The *right* answer is to add the MARC country code list to the controlled value lists that ship with AS, and have AS look to that list when serializing MARC.