It was a remarkably productive shower--several ideas, rewrites of reports,
and solutions to some problems my contact libraries have left with me all
appeared at once. Unfortunately, the day has been pretty much downhill
ever since.
On Thu, 3 Feb 2000, Elizabeth Robinson wrote:
> Tony,
>
> So you think of things cataloging in the shower also, huh? (smile) 680 actually exists and, I guess, has for quite some time. We just seem not to be using it. I'd just like to use it (smile, smile). And get our vendor to display it to the public, which actually may be an option already. We have an Innopac system, so I'll be investigating that shortly. --E.R.
>
> ----------
> From: Anthony R. Franks[SMTP:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Thursday, February 03, 2000 4:12 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: 667 vs. 680
>
> As a purely personal matter of opinion, and not at all reflecting the
> position of the Library of Congress on this matter, I will share with you
> the thought that struck me this morning, in the shower:
>
> If information is relevant to the heading, it goes into a 670 field; if
> it's not relevant to the heading, it goes into a 675 field.
>
> To paraphrase Judy Kuhagen speaking about another NAR-related matter,
> introducing yet another field and set of tagging into NAR production is
> not cataloging simplification.
>
> *****************************************************************************
> * Anthony Franks *
> * Library of Congress *
> * [log in to unmask] *
> * *
> * A personal opinion not the official position of the Library of Congress *
> ******************************************************************************
>
*****************************************************************************
* Anthony Franks *
* Library of Congress *
* [log in to unmask] *
* *
* A personal opinion not the official position of the Library of Congress *
******************************************************************************
|
