Well, since one man's Mede is another man's Persian, I guess you can make
that distinction, although I'm not sure why you would. In your example,
since AACR2 doesn't try to put restrictions on a note, I think foo.noteText
is equivalent to marc.500a. All you are really distinguishing is which
logical index you are referencing.
(disclaimer: I know there are other cataloging rules, besides AACR2)
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mike Taylor" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Monday, November 28, 2005 10:25 AM
Subject: Re: CQL and Marc record fields
>> Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2005 10:00:13 -0500
>> From: Mark Hinnebusch <[log in to unmask]>
>>>> So the answer to the original question of does CQL help with
>>>> searching MARC is: Yes, but you need to think about HOW you want
>>>> to search your data. Do you want to search by syntax (marc.500a),
>>>> or by semantics (foo.noteText)?
>> Actually, MARC is the structural mechanism but the cataloging rules
>> (such as AACR2) overlays semantics onto the structure. I think what
>> we are talking about here is really semantic searching.
> OK, I hear you. So a more precise way of expressing this would be: do
> you want to search by concrete semantics (marc.500a) or by abstract
> semantics (foo.noteText)?
> _/|_ ___________________________________________________________________
> /o ) \/ Mike Taylor <[log in to unmask]>
> )_v__/\ "Sure it stinks, but only a little stink; not the horrendous
> stench you might find in some other alleged ``science'' reports"
> -- Thomas R. Holtz, Jr. in a mellow mood