Karen Coyle <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>Before we start revising data formats, shouldn't we get very clear  
>about our requirements? If those requirements can be fulfilled with a  
>revision of MARC ...

As a basis, let's take the time tested choice and order of ISBD
elements, then add the desired relationships.

There are also interoperability with legacy bibliographic records, and
historical continuity, to consider.  Just because you personally
consider place of publication unimportant, does not mean an element
considered important for centuries should be downgraded.

>The next data carrier needs to be at least that flexible. >- there is
>a need to create relationships between bibliographic items,  such as
>part/whole relationships.

I know that UKMARC does better at whole/part relationships than
MARC21, and I've been told that German MAB does as well.  There is
experience, and there are tested solutions, which should not be
ignored.  We need not start anew, nor repeat old mistakes.  There is
an important body of experience.


   __       __   J. McRee (Mac) Elrod ([log in to unmask])
  {__  |   /     Special Libraries Cataloguing   HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
  ___} |__ \__________________________________________________________