Hal Cain schrieb:
>
>
> The markers were approved, but their implementation has been very much
> circumscribed; I forget where they're allowed; I don't know any system
> that uses them.
They would be allowed wherever they make sense.
The DP is here: http://www.loc.gov/marc/marbi/2002/2002-dp05.html
But a DP, even an approved one, is one thing, implementation is another.
It would require customers to ask for it in RFPs and such - which
apparently hasn't happened so far. So it's either an unnecessary
feature, but discussions time and again show it isn't, OR the
community is incredibly slow in embracing improvements (which would
make me hesitate to join this community) OR changes of whatever kind
in MARC are not really possible any more. What does that tell us
about chances for FRBR implementation? Yes please but don't change
anything in MARC?
Was Roy Tennant maybe right when he wrote "MARC must die"?
>
> Around 1980, the library where I was used such markers in its
> (locally-written, non-Marc) system: one pair meant print-not-file,
> another pair file-not-print. They enabled us to file "Henry VI, King of
> England" before "Henry IV, King of France" and keep each sequence in
> proper numerical order too.
>
Maybe no one wants sorted title arrangements any more, no matter how
correct they may be. Keyword access is all many patrons understand
anyway. For pure keyword access, you need no MARC. You need one and only
one field that holds everything, in whatever order of input. IOW, plain
text.
B.Eversberg
|