> Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2005 20:23:24 -0000
> From: "Matthew J. Dovey" <[log in to unmask]>
>>> 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 unambiguous.
> Yes, MARC field tags are all three characters - although checking that
> in ISO2709 I discovered that a MARC field tag can be alphanumeric which
> I'd never realised before! So you might have marc.aaaa for instance (or
> even marc.marc!)
Ha. I didn't know that, either.
(But "marc.mike" would have been a better example :-)
> I wasn't saying that marc.2451 or marc.aaaa was unambiguous just
> that it might be confusing (e.g. for any human reading or entering
> the CQL by hand), and marc.245$1 or marc.245.1 or whatever might be
> easier on the eye.
Yes, you may be right. Personally, I would be equally happy with any
of the three alternative we've mentioned, or the use of an underscore:
But I think it's important that we pick one of these forms and stick
with it. I would welcome comments from those who use MARC more
/o ) \/ Mike Taylor <[log in to unmask]> http://www.miketaylor.org.uk
)_v__/\ "In the forwards debate: Rush _is_ past it, despite the odd
hat-trick" -- Lee Curran.