LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for MARC Archives


MARC Archives

MARC Archives


[email protected]


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

MARC Home

MARC Home

MARC  June 2000

MARC June 2000

Subject:

RLG staff comments on MARBI Annual 2000 matters

From:

Joe Altimus <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

USMARC <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Tue, 20 Jun 2000 07:35:01 PDT

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (145 lines)

RLG staff comments on MARBI Annual 2000 matters

Discussion Paper 119

Leader 07.  If a code is defined to distinguish integrating
resources, it is highly likely that RLG will have to direct all
records with that code to either the RLIN BKS database or the RLIN
SER database.  RLG's targetting of records to specific RLIN
databases is based on the values in Leader/06-07.  An attempt to
discriminate records with the integrating resource code in Leader/07
for targetting to more than one RLIN database would require
consideration of other parts of a record.  It is possible that such
a wider consideration would have serious negative consequences on
proper overlay of existing RLIN records.  This matter can better be
explored when the specific types of resources that will be assigned
the integrating resources Leader/07 value are defined.  RLG will of
course ask its members for input when deciding how to target records
with the new Leader/07 value to RLIN databases.

008/18.  RLG uses the 008/18-19 values to generate a statement of
frequency in the RLIN LONG display when a record in RLIN MDF or SER
lacks either a 310 or now obsolete 315 field.  It would be easy to
accommodate a new code 'k' in 008/18.

008/21.  The discussion does not make clear what quality loose-leafs
have that makes them deserving of a unique code, while other
resources such as updating databases are satisfactorily treated with
blank in this position.

008/34.  RLG uses this code as one factor in determining whether an
incoming record clusters with other RLIN records.  If a new code is
defined for integrating publications, RLG will have to determine
whether an incoming record with that new code will cluster with
similar latest entry records in RLIN (i.e., matching in all
signficant parts except for 008/34) or in a separate cluster of only
integrating publication records.

It does not seem appropriate for MARBI to discuss questions 1-3.
They are all cataloging questions whose answers will come from the
Joint Steering Committee when it considers Jean Hirons' draft
revision of AACR2 Chapter 12.

Question 4.  The impact of multiple 260 fields in records for
indexing and display will of course vary depending on the system and
on the specifics of AACR2 and MARC changes.  In addition to indexing
and display concerns, RLG will have to figure out the impact on
clustering records in RLIN, as well as on date retrieval with the
RLIN ALSO and LIMIT commands.  RLG also needs to consider the
implications of such changes on special date indexes in the RLIN
ESTC and HPB databases as well, though the implications have to be
considered once the cataloging decisions for those materials have
been made.


Proposal 2000-01R

In the STATUS/COMMENTS section, the revised proposal says that the
MARC Advisory Committee discussion determined that a new proposal
should consider "indicating symbolic vs. ordinal numbers." An
example given in that discussion was volumes marked with * or **
instead of numbers or letters.  However, the revised proposal does
not provide coding options in Position 1 for such symbols.  Was this
an oversight?  If not, what led to determination that it was
unnecessary to code for such symbols?

The coding in Position 2 does not distinguish when the letters are
in a mixture of upper and lower cases. How should such examples be
coded?

The proposal defines $z as a repeatable subfield, but no example
illustrates such a repeat.  It seems useful to provide such an
example.  It would also be useful to have examples of complete
853/854/855 fields with a single $z and with multiple $z's to give a
proper context for evaluting the addition of $z to those fields.

MARBI should carefully consider making 4 blanks a default for
Latin script in positions 3-6.  Defining blanks in that way adds
another Latin script bias to the format, which might be an obstacle
to wider adoption of the format.  The default blanks would save
having to input the data, but automatic system provision of the
proper ISO script code would also serve the same goal.  However,
given the unlikelihood that automated library system consumers and
vendors will give any priority to redesigning systems to
automatically provide such an ISO script code default, it will be
hard to ignore the convenience of the default blanks.


Proposal 2000-07

RLG staff agree there is a need for a subfield for link text in the
856.  However, before $y is used, perhaps a comprehensive review of
856 subfields to remove unnecessary ones should be done.  It might
be that redefinition of some subfield for link text is preferred to
using $y.  For example, someone might think of a reason why it is
better to have the link text come before the URI in the field, so
that use of $t is preferred to $y.

RLG staff are concerned that adding a subfield for link text will
significantly affect the display of the 856, when MARC 21 does not
now make clear when subfields should be input in a particular order
to allow for an intelligible display to a user.  MARC 21 should at
least give guidance on the order for $3, $u and the new link text
subfield.  The format should also make clear the relationship
between those subfields and the second indicator in generating
constants/labels for the 856 field.

RLG staff think it would be helpful if display constants were
recommended for each 856 subfield, as most subfields are
unintelligible without constants.  RLG has defined constants for all
the subfields for use in its databases, but if the need for the
constants is a common one, wouldn't it be better to have a standard
in MARC 21 that everyone could use?  Ideally, the MARC 21 format
should also provide full examples of common types of 856 fields and
give input conventions when it is important that subfields (other
than $3, $u and the new link text one) appear in a certain order.
These general matters should be worked out before the link text
subfield is added to the 856.


Proposal 2000-08

Since this field is for taxonomic identification, which is
hierarchical in nature, it is logical to define a number of
different subfields to convey the hierarchical levels.  However,
it is not clear from the proposal if all levels must be given in
the 754, or if a portion may be given.  If partial taxonomies are
allowed, should subfields be skipped in the $b to $m range to show
missing levels in the hierarchy?  For instance, if only genus and
species were given in a particular 754, should $b and $c be used for
input, or other subfields that match the proper level of genus and
species in the taxonomic classification used in that field?

The MARC 21 format should give both undifferentiated (using
$a's) and differentiated (using $b-$m) examples of a complete
taxonomic hierarchy, and a partial taxonomy (if permitted).


Proposal 2000-09

It is important to make the CI format consistent with the other MARC
formats.

To:  [log in to unmask]
cc:  BL.CJA

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

March 2024
February 2024
January 2024
December 2023
October 2023
September 2023
August 2023
July 2023
June 2023
May 2023
April 2023
March 2023
February 2023
January 2023
December 2022
November 2022
October 2022
September 2022
August 2022
July 2022
June 2022
May 2022
April 2022
March 2022
February 2022
January 2022
December 2021
November 2021
October 2021
September 2021
August 2021
July 2021
June 2021
May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
January 2002
December 2001
November 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
July 2001
June 2001
May 2001
April 2001
March 2001
February 2001
January 2001
December 2000
November 2000
October 2000
September 2000
August 2000
July 2000
June 2000
May 2000
April 2000
March 2000
February 2000
January 2000
December 1999
November 1999
October 1999
September 1999
August 1999
July 1999
June 1999
May 1999
April 1999
March 1999
February 1999
January 1999
December 1998
November 1998
October 1998
September 1998
August 1998
July 1998
June 1998
May 1998
April 1998
March 1998
February 1998
January 1998
December 1997
November 1997
October 1997
September 1997
August 1997
July 1997
June 1997
May 1997
April 1997
March 1997
February 1997
January 1997
December 1996
November 1996
October 1996
September 1996
August 1996
July 1996
June 1996
May 1996
April 1996
March 1996
February 1996
January 1996

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.LOC.GOV

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager