>Proposal No. 2002-07: Definition of Additional Second Indicator Values
>for Specific Subject Systems in Field 655 in the MARC 21 Bibliographic
>Format
>http://www.loc.gov/marc/marbi/2002/2002-07.html
Good move. It will save keying time not to have to enter $2 and a code
for the more common lists.
>Discussion Paper No. 2002-DP01: Coding Electronic Formats for Different
>Media in Field 007 of the MARC 21 Bibliographic and Holdings Formats
>http://www.loc.gov/marc/marbi/2002/2002-dp01.html
Will this solve the problem of main item format vs. accompanying format
created by changing the LDR/06 code for print electronic resources from
computer file to print?
>Discussion Paper No. 2002-DP05: Guidelines for the Nonfiling Control
>Character Technique in the MARC 21 Formats
>http://www.loc.gov/marc/marbi/2002/2002-dp05.html
Would we then include initial articles in 246, e.g.,
246 30 $a{The} brown barn?
The examples show "0" as second filing indicator in 245. What about
older systems which do not yet recognize the new control character?
Wouldn't redundant coding be required for a time?
>Discussion Paper No. 2002-DP07: Changes for UKMARC Format Alignment
>http://www.loc.gov/marc/marbi/2002/2002-dp07.html
As the gourmand said to the waiter handing back the menu, I see nothing
here to which to object. Few of these additional fields and codes would
have impact on our day-to-day work. We have many older records with the
obsolete field 350 Price. I supposed these could be batch flipped to
the new code.
I do wish 248 could have been added from UKMARC for constituent title,
even if without all the subfields it has in UKMARC. Just as 246
replaced a 5XX/7XX combination, so could 248. It would be particularly
helpful in giving title access in systems which do a poor job of
indexing 7XX$t.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod ([log in to unmask])
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__________________________________________________________
|