27 Automatic Format Recognition of MARC Bibliographic Elements: A Review and Projection Brett BUTLER: Butler Associates, Stanford, California. A review and discussion of the technique of automatic format recogni- tion ( AFR) of bibliographic data are presented. A comparison is made of the record-building facilities of the Library of Congress, the Univer- sity of California (both AFR techniques), and the Ohio College Library Center (non-AFR). A projection of a next logical generation is described. INTRODUCTION The technique commonly identified as "format recognition" has more potential for radically changing the automation programs of libraries than any other technical issue today. While the development of MARC has provided an international stan- dard, and various computer developments provide increasingly lower op- erating costs, the investment in converting a catalog into machine-readable form has kept most libraries from integrating automated systems into their operations. The most expensive part of the conversion to machine-readable form has been the human editing required (generally by a cataloger) to iden- tify the many variable portions of the MARC-format cataloging record. A full cataloging record contains several hundred possible sections (or fields) in the MARC format. Research at the Library of Congress (LC) into this problem resulted in the concept of "format recognition" to re- duce cataloging input costs. With the automatic format recognition ( AFR) approach, an unedited cataloging entry is prepared (keypunched or otherwise converted to ma- chine-readable form). Then the AFR computer program provides identi- fication of the various elements of the catalog record through sophisticat- edcomputer editing. A degree of human post-editing is generally assumed, but· the computer basically is assigned the responsibility of editing an un- .(lae;n.1:itie~d block of text into a MARC-format cataloging record. pioneering AFR work at the Library of Congress is presently in use original cataloging input to the MARC Distribution Service. This 28 Journal of Libm1·y Automation Vol. 7/1 March 1974 system is quite sophisticated because its output goal is a complete MARC record with all fields, subfields, tags, and delimiters identified almost en- tirely through computer editing. The Institute of Library Research (ILR) at the University of Califor- nia, faced with the need to convert 800,000 catalog records to MARC for- mat, has developed a ·Jess ambitious AFR program which provides a level of identification sufficient to provide the desired book catalog bibliograph- ic output, or to print catalog cards. . . · The aim of this paper is to examine these two AFR strategies and con- sider their implications for input of two major classes of cataloging rec- ords: ( 1) LC or other cataloging records in standard card format; and ( 2) Original cataloging not yet in card format. Comparing the two AFR strategies to an essentially non-AFR format used at the Ohio College Library Center for on-line ca:taloging input, we will propose a median strategy for original cataloging. format recognition ( OFR). The thesis is that differing strategies of input should be used for records already formatted into catalog card images and for those original cataloging items being input prior to card production. AUTOMATIC FORMAT RECOGNITION An examination of the Library of Congress ( LC), University of Cali- fornia ( U C), Ohio College Library Center ( OCLC), and original format recognition ( OFR) strategies will show the operating differences .. A ·de- tailed field-by-field comparison of the nearly 500 distinct codes which can be identified in creation of a MARC record is attached as Appendix I. General comparisons can be made in several areas: input documents, man- ual coding, level of identification, input and processing costs, error correc- tion, and flexibility in use. Input Documents-The LC/AFR program operates from an uncoded typescript to a machine-readable record prepared through MT /ST mag- netic tape input. This typescript is, however, prepared from an LC cata- loger's Manuscript Worksheet, in which thereis some inherent bibliograph- ic order.· The LC/ AFR program does not rely on this inherent order al- though its design takes advantage of the probable order in search strate- gies. LC/ AFR could operate with keying of catalog cards, book catalog en- tries~ or any structure of bibliographic data. The UC program is designed more specifically to handle input of for- matted catalog cards, and some of its AFR strategy is based on· the se- quence and physical indentation pattern on standard catalog cards. It would not work effectively on noncard format input without special recog- nition of some tagging conventions. The OCLC program allows direct input to CRT screen from any input docutnent; it requires complete identification of each cataloging field or subelement input. Automatic Fo1'mat Recognition/BUTLER 29 Manual Coding-LC/ AFR requires minimal input coding. Within the title paragraph, the title proper, the edition statement, and imprint are explicitly separated at input. Series, subject, and other added entries are recognized initially from the Roman and Arabic numerals preceding them. Aside Jrom these items, virtually all MARC fields are recognized by the computer editing program. UC/ AFR inserts a code after the call number input, thus providing ex- plicit identification at input. It also identifies each new indentation on the catalog card explicitly, thus implicitly identifying main entry, title, and certain other major cataloging blocks on the card. The OCLC input specifications require explicit coding, some of which is prompted by the CRT screen. Level of Identification-LC/ AFR provides the highest possible level of MARC record identification, deriving practically every field, subfield, and other code if it is present in an individual cataloging record.~ In evaluation of this element of LC/ AFR it should be realized that the needs of the Li- brary of Congress in creating original MARC records for nationwide dis- tribution (and its own use) are much more sophisticated and complex than those of any individual user library or system. The UC/ AFR approach reflects a more task-oriented approach, deriving a sufficient level of identification to separate major bibliographic elements. This technique is clearly sufficient to produce computer-generated catalog cards or similar output in a standard manner. However, UCjAFR lacks several identifiers, such as specific delimitation of information in the im- print field, which would make feasible the use of its records for further computer-generated processes. The OCLC input format is of variable level; many elements are option- al and are noted with an asterisk in Appendix I. At its most complete, the OCLC format specifically excludes only a very few MARC fields, most no- tably Geographic Area and Bibliographic Price. Input and P1'ocessing Costs-Direct cost information has not been pub- lished for production costs of any of the format recognition systems. The Library of Congress has reported that ..... the format recognition tech- nique is of considerable value in speeding up input and lowering the cost per record for processing."3 While formal reports have not been pub- lished, informed opinion has placed the cost of creation of a MARC rec- ord at a level of $3.00 ± $.50. Format recognition is credited with an in- crease in productivity of about one-third on input keying and an increase of over 80 percent in human editing/proofreading, and actual computer 0 A number of standard subdivi'sions of various fields were first announced as part of the MARC format in the 5th edition of Books: A MARC Format, which was pub- lished in 1972.1 Consequently they are not specified in Format Recognition Process for MARC Records, published in 1970, which was used as the reference for this paper.2 They are, however, clearly subfields which could be identified by expansions of AFR. These elements are marked with a lower-case "r" in Appendix I. 30 Journal of Libtary Automation Vol. 7/1 March 1974 processing times approximate those achieved with earlier Library of Con- gress MARC processing programs.4 lt would seem that AFR may have low- ered Library of Congress MARC processing costs to the level of $2.00 ± $.50. In the final report of the RECON Pilot Project, cost simulation pro- jections for full editing and format recognition editing were given as $3.46 and $3.06 per record, respectively.6 While full cost information has not been derived for the UC/ AFR program itself, figures have been informally reported at library automa- tion meetings indicating that the cost of record creation was approximate- ly $1.00 per entry. Included in this figure is computer editing of name and other entries against a computerized authority file, which is done manual- ly in the LC/ AFR system. This program is undeniably the least-cost ef- fort to date providing a MARC-format bibliographic record. No cost data are provided on the OCLC on-line input system. It can be observed that the coding required is quite similar to the pre-AFR system in use at the Library of Congress itself, and that on-line CRT input had been evaluated at LC as a higher-cost input technique than the magnetic- tape typewriters currently providing MARC input. LC is considering, though, on-line CRT access for subsequent human editing of the MARC record created through off-line input and AFR editing. Error Rate and Correction-Any AFR strategy, with present state of the art, generates some error above the normal keying rate observed with edited records. The strategy aims for lowest overall cost by catching these errors in a postprocessing edit which must be performed even for records edited prior to input. The Library of Congress reports, "The format rec- ognition production rate of 8.4 records per hour (proofing only) . . . is slightly less than that (about 9.2 per hour) for proofing edited records. With format recognition records, the editors must be aware of the errors made by the program ... as well as keying mistakes."6 The savings in pre- keyboard editing and increased keying rates more than make up for this slight decrease in postprocessing editing. At the Library of Congress, where AFR is used for production of MARC records, a full editing process aims at 100 percent accuracy of in- put. While such a goal is statistically unreachable, considerable effort· is expended by the MARC Distribution Service to provide the most accurate output possible. From a systems perspective, errors existing in MARC rec- ords are perhaps less reprehensible than errors in printed bibliographic output, simply because the distributed MARC record can be updated by subsequent distribution of a "correction" record. It should be noted that some MARC subscribers have voiced concern about the increased percent- age of "correction" records, which the Library of Congress indicates come primarily from cataloging changes rather than input edit errors. The UC/ AFR program clearly takes a statistical approach to biblio- graphic element input and processing. Shoffner has indicated that the scale of the 1,000,000 record input project caused a reevaluation of the feasibil- ity of traditional procedures. 7 The result is, in the UC/ AFR implementa- Automatic Format Recognition/BUTLER 31 tion, a MARC record essentially devoid of human editing. For a smaller scale of production, the UC approach could be combined with post-editing such as that used at LC to increase overall file accuracy. In passing, how- ever, it should be noted that rather sophisticated verification techniques are used in the UC/ AFR approach which could be of value in future ap- proaches. These include, for instance, comparison of all words against a machine-readable English-language dictionary; words not found in the dic- tionary are output for manual editing as suspected keypunch errors. Little information is available on the error rates and corrections in the OCLC system. However, most records keyed to the OCLC system are for a local member's catalog card production, so feedback is provided and pre- sumably errors are corrected through re-inputting to obtain a proper set of catalog cards. There is no central control on the quality of locally entered OCLC records at present, except for the encoding standards developed by OCLC. Flexibility in Use-A number of considerations are appropriate here- how many types of format (catalog cards, worksheets, etc. ) can be used as input, how many possible outputs can be developed from the derived MARC format, how adaptable is the system to remote and multiple input locations, how many special equipment restrictions are there? The LC/ AFR program is clearly the most flexible in ability to accept varying inputs and provide a flexible output. It is, however, not capable of any authority-file editing at present (this is done manually against LC's master files before input). While the input form could be used rather easily at remote locations, the MARC AFR programs themselves are not available for use outside the Library of Congress. The UC/AFR program provides a rather minimal set of cataloging ele- ment subfields but does provide more sophisticated textual editing within the program. It is quite adaptable to remote input as long as the original "worksheet" is in catalog card format, a restriction which in effect requires a preinput human editing step for original cataloging input. The MARC format provided would not be sufficient for some currently operating pro- grams using the full MARC format, but is quite sufficient for most bib- liographic outputs. The OCLC input program is dependent on visual editing at the time of CRT keying. Its flexibility in input is considerable, and outputs can ap- proach a full MARC record if all optional fields are identified. ORIGINAL FORMAT RECOGNITION A working conclusion of this review is that an AFR program developed according to the strategy of the University of California will deliver a satisfactory MARC-format record at a lower cost than other AFR or non- AFR alternatives. However, much of the efficiency of the UCjAFR is based on the presence of an already existing LC-format catalog card from which to keyboard machine-readable data. For original cataloging to be keyboarded from a cataloger's worksheet, 32 Journal of Library Automation Vol. 7/1 March 1974 an original format . recognition strategy is proposed which · provides a somewhat more detailed format than the UC/ AFR MARC while retain- ing a generally flexible system and low input costs. Several system consid- erations also guide the design of an OFR system designed for relatively general-purpose user input and multiple output functions: • no special equipment requirements for input keying; • no special knowledge of the MARC format required; • minimal table-lookup or text searching in processing; • flexible options for depth of coding provided; and • sufficient depth of format derived for most applications. The OFR input strategy outlined in Appendix I provides a much greater degree of explicit field coding at input than the AFR programs outlined above. The basis for this decision is the judgment that this cataloging, being done originally by a professional, can readily be coded by element name prior to input. No effort is made to identify MARC field elements which· occur with very low frequency, or which are of limited utility for most applications. For instance, the "MEETING" type of entry occurs in all combinations, in only 1.8 percent of all records studied by the Library of Congress in its format recognition study. 8 MARC elements requiring either extensive human editing or complex computer processing are likewise excluded from input, on a cost-utility basis. An example is the Geographic Area Code, which must either be as- signed by a knowledgeable editor or derived through extensive computer searching for the city /county of publication. However, where little penalty is attached to allowing input of coded in- formation, the OFR format allows input for inclusion in the derived MARC-format record. CONCLUSION It is clear that the AFR programs developed for specific needs by the Li- brary of Congress and the University of California can be great factors for change in library automation strategies over the next decade. Striking benefits in cost savings, ease of input, and subsequent processing are to be gained. The abbreviated outline of an original cataloging ( OFR) input strategy is simply a suggestion of a second generation of format recognition pro- grams which will undoubtedly develop to serve more general needs for MARC-format bibliographic input. REFERENCES 1. U.S. Library of Congress, MARC Development Office, Books: A MARC Format. 5th ed. (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1972). 2. Format Recognition Process for MARC Records: A Logical Design (Chicago: American Library Association, 1970). Automatic Format ReeognitionjBVTLER 33 3. Henriette D. Avram, Lenore S. Maruyama, and John C. Rather, "Automation Ac- tivities in tl:te Processing Department of the Library of Congress," Library Re- sources & Technical Services 16:195-239 (Spring 1972). · . 4. Ibid., p.204, 206. 5. RECON Pilot Project, RECON Pilot Project Final Report, prepared by Henriette D. Avram. (Washington, D.C.: Library of Congress, 1972). 6. Avram, et al., "Automation Activities," p.206. 7. Ralph M. Shoffner, Some Implications of Automatic Recognition of Bibliographic Elements, Technical Paper No. 22. (Berkeley, Calif.: Institute of Library Research, University of California, April 1971) . 8. Format Recognition Process, p.48. APPENDIX I Format Recognition Input Specifications Code Outline FIELD TAG The number listed is the field tag number of that bibliographic ele- ment in the MARC format. Each general field is listed first. Following it are notes indicating areas within the field. Fixed-field indicators within the field are listed first; each one's code number follows a slash after the field code (041/ 1 =field 41, indicator code 1). If there is more than one group of indicators, an additional code describes group 1 (Il) or group 2 (I2). Subfields within the field are alphabetic codes following a "+" sign after the field code ( 070+b =field 070, subfield b). FIELD NAME The overall field name is listed first. Fixed-field indicator names are listed at the first indenti'on under the Field N arne. Subfield names are listed at the second indention under the Field N arne. TREATMENT BY PROGRAM These codes indicate the processing provided for each field and subelement by the four computer processing systems considered. Codes are slightly different for each column considered: LC The Library of Congress system. "R'' indicates that the element described is recognized by the program, rather than explicitly identified at input. "I" indicates the element is keyed and not recognized by the format recognition process. A small "r" denotes elements introduced to the MARC format since AFR documentation was published, but presumably treated by the AFR program just as "R" elements. "0" indicates that the element marked is omitted from input altogether. UC The University of California system. Codes are identical to those above, but the "r" code is not used. OCLC The Ohio College Library Center system. In addition to the above codes, "~" following any item denotes that input is optional. "I" code is used wherever an element is tagged even though the OCLC programs create the MARC format from these tags. OFR Original Format Recognition proposals. Codes are similar to those described in the previous paragraphs. FIELD TAG, INDICATOR 015 015+a FORMAT RECOGNITION INPUT SPECIFICATIONS TREATMENT BY PROGRAM FIELD NAME LC UC OCLC OFR National Bibliography No. R 0 0 I~ 34 Journal of Library Automation Vol. 7/1 March 1974 APPENDIX 1 (continued) FIELD TAG, TREATMENT BY PROGRAM INDICATOR FIELD NAME LC uc OCLC OFR 025 Overseas Acquisition No. R 0 0 0 025ta 041 Languages R R I I" 041/0 Multilanguage indicator R 041/1 Translation indicator R 041ta Text/translation code R I 041tb Summary language code R I 043 Geographic Area Code R 0 0 0 043ta 049 Holdings Information 049ta Holding library code 0 I I I 050 LC Call Number R R" I R" 050/0 Book is in LC R 050/1 Book not in LC R 050ta LC Class Number R I R 050tb Book Number R I R 051 LC Copy Statement R 0 0 0 051ta 051t b 051tc 060 Natl. Lib. Medicine Call No. R 0 R" 060ta NLM Class Number R I" 060t b NLM Book Number R I" 070 N.A.L. Call Number R 0 R" 070ta NAL Class Number R 0 070t b NAL Book Number R 0 082 Dewey Decimal Classif. No. R 0 I R" 082ta DDC Number R I 086 Su. Docs. Classif. No. r 0 I 0 086ta Su. Docs. Number r I 090 Local Call Number ( LC) 0 R R 090ta LC Class Number I" R 090tb Book Number I" R 092 Local Call Number (Dewey) 0 0 .. I" 092ta Dewey Class Number I" I" 092tb Book Number I" I" 100 Personal Name R R R 100/0,11 Forename R 100/1, 11 Single Surname R 100/2,11 Multiple Surname R 100/3,11 Name of Family R 100/0,I2 Main Entry not Subject R 100/1,I2 Main Entry is Subject R lOOt a Name R I lOOt b Numeration R" I lOOtc Title assoc. w /name R I lOOtd Date R I lOOte Relator R I lOOtk Form Subheading R I lOOtt Title of Book R I lOOtl Language r I" lOOt£ Date of Work r I" Automatic Format Recognition/BUTLER 35 APPENDIX 1 (continued) FIELD TAG, TREATMENT BY PROGRAM INDICATOR FIELD NAME LC uc OCLC OFR IOO+p Part of Work r I" 110 Corporate Name R 0 I" 110/0,11 Inverted Surname R I" 11011,11 Place or Place + Name R 110/2,11 Direct-order Name R I" 110/0,12 Main Entry not Subject R 110/1,12 Main Entry is Subject R 110+a Name R I 110+b Subordinate Unit R I 110+c Relator R I 110+k Form Subheading R I 110+t Title of Book R I 110+u Nonprinting Element R 0 110+1 Language r I" 110+p Part Code r P' 110+f Date of Work r I" llO+g Miscellaneous r I" Ill Conference or Meeting, M.E. R 0 I 0 111/0,11 Inverted Surname R 111/1, 11 Place or Place+ Name R 111/2,11 Direct-order Name R 111/0,12 Main Entry not Subject R 111/1,12 Main Entry is Subject R 111 +a Name R, I 111 + b Number R I 111+c Place R I 11l+d Date R I 111+e Subordinate Unit R I 111 +f Date of Publication r I" 111+g Miscellaneous R I" 11l+k Form Subheading R I 111+1 Language r I" 111+p Part r I" 111+t Title of Book R I 130 Uniform Title Heading, M.E. R 0 I I" 130,11 Blank 130/0,12 Main Entry is not Subject R 130/1,12 Main Entry is Subject R 130+a Uniform Title Heading R I 130+£ Date of Work r I" 130+ g Miscellaneous r I" 130+h Media Qualifier r I" 130+k Form Subheading r I 130+1 Language r I" 130+p Part r I" 130+s Alternate Version r I" 130+t Title of Book R I 240 Uniform Title, Supplied R R I I" 240/0,11 Not Printed on LC Cards R 240/1,11 Printed on LC Cards R R 240+ a Uniform Title R R I 240+£ Date of Work i I" 240+k Form Subheading r, I 240+p Part of Work r I" 36 Journal of Librmy Automation Vol. 7/1 March 1974 APPENDIX 1 (continued) FIELD TAG, TREATMENT BY PROGRAM INDICATOR FIELD NAME LC ,, ·. uc OCLG OFR 240+s Version r I" 241 Romanized Title R 0 I" 241/0, I1 Not Printed on LC Cards R 241/1,!1 Printed on LC Cards R 241 +a Romanized Title R I"' 245 Title R R I I 245/0, I1 No Title Added Entry R R R 245/1, I1 Title Added Entry R R R 245/0,I2 Nonfiling Field R 0 245+a Short Title R R I R 245+b Subtitle R R I R 245+c Title Page Transcription R R I R 250 Edition Statement R 0 I R 250+a Edition R I 0 250+ b Additional Information R I 260 Imprint Statement R 0 I I 260/0 Publisher not M.E. R I R 260/1 Publisher is M.E. R I R 260+a Place of Publication R I R 260+b Publisher R I R 260+c Date of Publication R I R 300 Collation R R I R 300+a Pagination or Volume R R I R 300+b Illustration R 0 I 0 300+c Height R 0 I 0 350+a Bibliographic Price R 0 0 I 400 Series, Personal Name R (R) I R 400/0, I1 Forename R 400/1, I1 Single Surname R 400/2, I1 Multiple Surname R 400/3, I1 Name of Family R 400/0,I2 Author not Main Entry R 400/1,I2 Author is Main Entry R 400+a Name R I R 400+b Numeration R I 400+c Title Associated R I 400+d Dates R I 400+e Relator R I 400+k Form Subheading R I 400+f Date of Work r I"' 400+1 Language r I"' 400+p Part of Work r I" 400+t Title of Book R I 400+v Volume or Number R I 410 Series, Corporate Name R (R) I I 410/0, I1 Inverted Surname R R I" 410/1, I1 Place, Place + N arne R R 410/2, I1 Direct-order Name R R I" 410/0,12 Author not Main Entry R R 410/1,12 Author is Main Entry R R 410+a Name R I 410+b Subordinate Unit R I 410+e Relator R I Automatic Format Recognition/BUTLER 37 APPENDIX 1 (continued) FIELD TAG, TREATMENT BY PROGRAM INDICATOR FIELD NAME LC uc OCLC OFR 410+f Date of Work r I" 410+g Miscellaneous r I" 410+k Form Subheading R I 410+1 Language r I" 410+p Part r I" 410+t Title of Book R I 410+u Nonprinting Element R 0 410+v Volume R I 411 Series, Conference Title R 0 I I" 411/0, II Inverted Surname R 411/1, II Place, Place+ Name R 411/2, II ·.Direct-order Name R 411/0, I2 Author not Main Enhy R 411/1, I2 ,Author is Main Enhy R 411+a Name R I 4ll+b Number R I 411+c Place R I 41l+d Date R I 411+e Name Subordinates R I 41l+f Publication Date r I" 411+g Miscellaneous r I" 41l+k Form Subdivision r I 411+1 Language r I" 4ll+p Part r I" 411+t Title of Book R I 4ll+v Volume R I 440 Series, Title R R I I 440+a Title R R I R 440+v Volume or Number R I R 490 Series, Untraced or R R R T:raced Differently I 490/0 . Series Not Traced I 490/1 • Series Traced Diff. R I R 490+a Series Name R R I R 500 Bibliographic Notes R R R 500+a General Note R R I" 501 +a "Bound With" R 0 502+a Dissertation R I" 503+a Bibliography History 0 0 504+a Bibliography Note R I 505 Contents Note R R 505/0 . Contents Complete R 505/1 · Contents Incomplete R 505/2 Partial Contents R 505+a Contents Note R I" 520+a Abstract or Annotation R I 600 Subject A.E., Personal R R I I 600/0, II Forename R 600/1, II Single Surname R 60012, II Multiple Surname R 600/3, II Name of Family R 60010, I2 LC Subject Heading Code R I 600/1, I2 Annotated Card Heading R I 38 ] ournal of Library Automation Vol. 7/1 March 1974 APPENDIX 1 (continued) FIELD TAG, TREATMENT BY PROGRAM INDICATOR FIELD NAME LC uc OCLC OFR 600/2,12 NLM Subject Heading Code R I 600/3, I2 NAL Subject Heading Code R 0 600/4, I2 Other Subject Heading R I I 600+a Name R I 600+b Numeration R I 600+c Associated Title R I 600+d Date R I 600+e Relator R I 600+f Date of Work r I"' 600+k Form Subheading R I 600+1 Language r I"' 600+t Title of Book R I 600+p Part of Book r I"' 600+x General Subdivision R I 600+y Period Subdivision R I 600+z Place Subdivision R I 610 Subject A.E., Corporate R 0 I I 610/0,11 Inverted Surname R 610/1,11 Place, Place+ Name R 610/2,11 Direct-order Name R 610/0,I2 LC Subject Heading Code R I 610/1,I2 Annotated Card Heading R I 610/2,I2 NLM Subject Heading Code R I 610/3,12 NAL Subject Heading Code R 0 610/4,12 Other Subject Heading R I I 610+a Name R 0 1 I 610+b Subordinate Unit R I 610+e Relator R I 610+f Date of Work r I"' 610+k Form Subheading R I 610+1 Language r I"' 610+g Miscellaneous r I"' 610+p Part r I"' 610+t Title of Book R I 610+u Nonprinting Element R 0 610+x General Subdivision R I 610+y Period Subdivision R I 610+z Place Subdivision R I 611 Subject A.E., Conference R 0 I 0 611/0,11 Inverted Surname R 611/1,11 Place, Place + N arne R 611/2,11 Direct-order Name R 611/0, I2 LC Subject Heading Code R I 611/1, I2 Annotated Card Heading R I 611/2, I2 NLM Subject Heading Code R I 611/3, I2 NAL Subject Heading Code R 0 611/4, I2 Other Subject Heading R I 611 +a Name R I 611+b Number R I 61l+c Place R I 61l+d Date R I 61l+e Subordinate Unit R I 611+f Publication Date r IO 61l+g Miscellaneous R I"' Automatic Format Recognition/BUTLER 39 APPENDIX 1 (continued) FiELD TAG, TREATMENT BY PROGRAM INDICATOR FIELD NAME LC uc OCLC OFR 6ll+k Form Subheading R I 611+1 Language r I~ 61l+p Part r I~ 61l+t Title of Book R I 6ll+x General Subdivision R I 6ll+y . Period Subdivision R I 6ll+z Place Subdivision R I 630 Subject A.E., Uniform Title R 0 I 0 630/0,I2 LC Subject Heading Code R I 630/1,I2 Annotated Card Heading R I 630/2, I2 NLM Subject Heading Code R I 630/3,I2 NAL Subject Heading Code R 0 630/4, I2 Other Subject Heading R I 630+a Uniform Title Heading R I R 630+£ Date of Work r I~ 630+g Miscellaneous r I~ 630+h Media Qualifier r I~ 630+k Form Subdivision r I 630+1 Language r I~ 630+p Part r I~ 630+s Alternate Version r I~ 630+t Title R I 630+x General Subdivision R I 630+y Period Subdivision R I 630+z Place Subdivision R I 650 Subject A.E., Topical R R I R 650/0, I2 LC Subject Heading Code R I 650/1, I2 Annotated Card Heading R I 650/2,I2 NLM Subject Heading Code R I 650/3,I2 NAL Subject Heading Code R 0 650/4, I2 Other Subject Heading R I I 650+a Topical Subject, Place R I 650+b Element after Place R I 650+x General Subdivision R I 650+y Period Subdivision R I 650+z Place Subdivision R I 651 Subject A.E., Geographic R 0 I 0 651/0, I2 LC Subject Heading Code R I 651/1,I2 Annotated Card Heading R I 651/2, I2 NLM Subject Heading Code R I 65113,12 NAL Subject Heading Code R 0 65114,12 Other Subject Heading R I 651+a Geographic Name, Place R I 651+b Element After Place R I 651+x General Subdivision R I 651+y Period Subdivision R I 651+z Place Subdivision R I 690 Subject A.E., Local Topical 0 0 I~ 0 690+a Topical Subject, Place 0 I 690+b Element After Place 0 I 690+x General Subdivision 0 I 690+y Period Subdivision 0 I 690+z Place Subdivision 0 I 40 journal of Libm1·y Automation Vol. 7/1 March 1974 APPENDIX 1 (continued) FIELD TAG, TREATMENT BY PROGRAM INDICATOR FIELD NAME LC uc OCLC OFR 691 Subject A.E., Local Geogr. 0 0 F 0 691+a Geographic Name, Place 0 I 691+b Element After Place 0 I 691+x General Subdivision 0 I 69l+y Period Subdivision 0 I 691+z Place Subdivision 0 I 700 Other A.E., Personal Name R R I R 700/0, I1 Forename R 700/1, I1 Single Surname R 700/2, I1 Multiple Surname R 700/3, I1 Name of Family R 700/0, I2 Alternate Entry R 700/1, I2 Secondary Entry R 700/2, I2 Analytical Entry R 700+a Name R I 700+b Numeration R I 700+c Title Associated R I 700+d Date R I 700+e Relator R I 700+f Publication Date R I~ 700+k Form Subheading R I 700+1 Language r IO 700+p Part of Work r I~ 700+t Title of Book R I 710 Other A.E., Corporate Name R 0 I J~; 7~0/0, I1 Inverted Surname R 710/1, I1 Place, Place + N arne R 710/2, I1 Direct-order Name R 710/0, I2 Alternate Entry R 710/1, I2 Secondary Entry R 710/2, I2 Analytical Entry R 710+a Name R I 710+b Subordinate Unit R I 710+e Relator R I 710+f Date of Work r I~ 710+g Miscellaneous r IO 710+k Form Subheading R I 710+1 Language r I~ 710+p Part of Work r I~ 710+t Title of Work R I 710+u Nonprinting Element R 0 711 Other A.E., Conference R 0 I I~ 711/0, I1 Inverted Surname R 711/1, I1 Place, Place+ Name R 711/2, I1 Direct-order Name R 711/0, I2 Alternate Entry R 711/1, I2 Secondary Entry R 711/2, I2 Analytical Entry R 711+a Name R I 711+b Number R I 711+c Place R I 711+d Date R I 711+e Subordinate Units R I 711+f Date of Work r I~ . ' Automatic For.mat Recognition/BUTLER 41 APPENDIX 1 (continued) FIELD•TAG, TREATMENT BY PROGRAM INDICATOR FIELD NAME LC uc OCLC OFR 711tg Miscellaneous R I" 711tk Form Subheading R I. 711tl Language r I" 711tp Part of Work r ·I" 711tt Title of Book R I 730 Other A.E., Uniform Title R 0 I R 730/0,I2 Alternate Entry R 730/1, I2 Secondary Entry R 730/2,I2 Analytical Entry R 730ta Uniform Title R I 730tf Date of Work r I" 730tg Miscellaneous r I" 730th Media Qualifier r I" 730tk Form Subdivision r I" 730tl Language r I" 730tp Part of Work r I" 730ts Alternate Version r I" 730tt Title of Work R I 740 Other A.E., Title Traced Differently R R I R 740/0, I2 Alternate Entry R 740/l,I2 Secondary Entry R 740/2,I2 Analytical Entry R 740ta Title Different R I 800 Series A.E., Personal R R I" I 800/0 Forename R 800/1 Single Surname R 800/2 Multiple Surname R 800/3 Name of Family R SOOt a Name R I SOOth Numeration R I BOOte Title Associated R I 800td Dates R I BOOte Relator R I 800tf Date of Work r I" 800tk Form Subheading R I 800tl Language r I" 800tp Part of Work r I" 800+t Title of Work R I 800tv Volume or Number R I 810 Series A.E., Corporate R R I" I" 810/0 Inverted Surname R 810/1 Place, Placet Name R 810/2 Direct-order Name R SlOta Name R I 810tb Subordinate Unit R I 810te Relator R I 810tf Date of Work r I" 810tg Miscellaneous r I" 810tk Form Subheading R I 810tl Language r I" 810tp Part of Work r I" SlOtt Title of Work R I 810tu Nonprinting Element R 0 42 ] ournal of Library Automation Vol. 7/1 March 1974 APPENDIX 1 (continued) FIELD TAG, TREATMENT BY PROGRAM INDICATOR FIELD NAME LC uc OCLC OFR 810+v Volume or Number R I 811 Series A.E., Conference R 0 I<) 0 811/0 Inverted Surname R 811/1 Place, Place+ Name R 811/2 Direct-order Name R 811+a Name R I 811+b Number R I 811+c Place R I 811+d Date R I 811+e Subordinate Unit R I 811+f Date of Work r IO 811+g Miscellaneous R JO 811+k Form Heading R I 811+1 Language r I"' 811+p Part of Work r I"' 811+t Title of Book R I 811+v Volume or Number R I 840 Series A.E., Title R 0 I"' 0 840+a Title R I 840+v Volume or Number R I 590+a Local Notes Field 0 0 I"' 0 910+a User Option Data Field 0 0 I"* 0