Catherine Argus <[log in to unmask]> said:
> We are concerned that the Proposal does not address the duplication
>and overlap between the 76X-78X linking fields and some 5XX fields
>(e.g. 534 field) that already provide for structured information
>about related resources, including the use of citations ($a$t>
>combinations), specific identifiers (e.g. $x, $z), $o other resource
>identifiers, and $u Uniform Resource identifiers.
This is the most succinct, best informed, comment I've read on changes
to MARC to accommodate RDA.
Simplification of MARC fixed fields to remove redundancy with proposed
new fields is a basic need, as well as rationalization with other
variable fields.
>The National Library of Australia supports the need for a mechanism
>to encode a URI for a value from a controlled vocabulary, and hope
>that less ambiguous solution is found, preferably for initial RDA
>implementation.
The substitution of an url for text presupposes constant access to the
Web, which may be true for Australia, but is not true in rural British
Columbia, and I suspect in other parts of the world. To not be able
to search the local OPAC by a known name when the Web is down would be
a major handicap.
As early as 1979 UTLAS' Catss substituted the RSN (001) of authorities
for text in 1XX, 6XX and 7XX of bibliographic records; but the
authority records as well as the bibliographic records were inhouse,
and not dependent on external communications.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod ([log in to unmask])
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__________________________________________________________
|