LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for BIBFRAME Archives


BIBFRAME Archives

BIBFRAME Archives


[email protected]


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

BIBFRAME Home

BIBFRAME Home

BIBFRAME  September 2011

BIBFRAME September 2011

Subject:

Re: Description and Access functions in a post-MARC environment?

From:

Karen Coyle <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

[log in to unmask]

Date:

Sun, 25 Sep 2011 12:13:58 -0700

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (70 lines)

Quoting "J. McRee Elrod" <[log in to unmask]>:


>> Although a $0 has been added to the MARC format so that it can accept
>> some of the RDA  ata, the subfield remains ambiguous in some fields,
>> and therefore  isn't usable in the intended way (substituting an
>> identifier for a  articular data element).
>
> Coul this not be met by having the $0 follow the data the code
> represents?  While I am happy to *add* an identifier to a data
> element, I hesitate to *substitute* an identifier for a data element
> which is normally transcribed.

1) the identifier may represent data that is in more than one  
subfield, cf. personal names. So it's not one-to-one -- there is a  
difference in granularity.
2) You wouldn't substitute an identifier for a transcribed data  
element, but might do so for a controlled element, such as personal  
name, personal name/title, series title, etc. Also, having an  
identifier in the record does NOT mean that the display information is  
not included -- that's a choice you can make in your system.


>
> One difficulty with two letter subfield codes would be telling the
> difference between a two letter code, and a one latter code followed
> by a lower case data element, e.g., "e-Book".  A one letter code with
> punctuation might work better, e.g., 245 =$b and :$b.

The way

>
> While we support several ILS which can only display MARC fields in
> number order, we have never encountered one which requires that
> subfields be in alphabetical order.  Since AACR2 changed the order of
> subelements in a conference entry, bringing date earlier, ILSs have
> had to cope with out of alphabetical order subfields.  While
> alphabetical order is a mnemonic advantage, and should be observed
> (e.g., the complicated proposed 26X), the newer 246 and subfield coded
> 505 paid no attention to it.  This is but one of several departures
> from Ms Avram's vision.
>
> I agree absolutely with Karen's emphasis on content, e.g., city *and*
> jurisdiction in the imprint statement whether on resource or not.
>
>
>    __       __   J. McRee (Mac) Elrod ([log in to unmask])
>   {__  |   /     Special Libraries Cataloguing   HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
>   ___} |__ \__________________________________________________________
>
>
>
> *UKMARC differs from MARC21 in that ISBD punctuation is not included,
> but is supplied by the system based on subfield coding. That means
> that MARC21's :$b subtitle, =$b parallel title, and ,$b second title
> in a collection without a collective title, must have differing
> subfield codes. Which reminds me, it seems to me 260$c plus the
> copyright sign work just as well to distinguish publication and
> copyright years as the complex proposed new MARC imprint field.
>



-- 
Karen Coyle
[log in to unmask] http://kcoyle.net
ph: 1-510-540-7596
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

March 2024
February 2024
January 2024
December 2023
November 2023
October 2023
September 2023
August 2023
July 2023
June 2023
May 2023
April 2023
March 2023
February 2023
January 2023
December 2022
November 2022
October 2022
September 2022
August 2022
July 2022
June 2022
May 2022
April 2022
March 2022
February 2022
January 2022
December 2021
November 2021
October 2021
September 2021
August 2021
July 2021
June 2021
May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
July 2011
June 2011

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.LOC.GOV

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager