> 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.
>>> 
>>> marc.2451
>>> 
>>> 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:

	marc.245a
	marc.245$a
	marc.245.a
	marc.245_a

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
extensively.

 _/|_	 ___________________________________________________________________
/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.