> Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2005 12:23:54 -0000
> From: "Matthew J. Dovey" <[log in to unmask]>
> > I think Simple Is Better in this case, so I'd roll the
> > subfield into the indexname, like this:
> > marc.245a = "Smith"
> Fair enough - although as Rob indicates it does lead to a very long
> list of indexes!
Yes; but we don't need to list them. Just point at the LC MARC
documentation and say "index names are made using this recipe ..."
> I think a delimier *is* needed between the MARC tag and the subfield
> though just to avoid confusion over say numeric subfield names e.g.
> Say marc.245$1 marc245$a for instance?
We could do that; but isn't it the case that MARC fields are all
three-digit numbers anyway? In which case 2451 is perfectly
> The latter case can be address by having indicator0, indicator1 as
> relational modifiers
> marc.245$a =/indicator0=2 Smith
> The former case I suppose would have to be
> marc.245 =/indicator1=5 *
I guess that's right, too. Let's hope the server implementors spot
the obvious optimisation here :-)
/o ) \/ Mike Taylor <[log in to unmask]> http://www.miketaylor.org.uk
)_v__/\ "However beautiful the strategy, you should occasionally look
at the results" -- Winston Churchill.