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:

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

Reply-To:

Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Sun, 25 Sep 2011 09:25:34 -0700

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (94 lines)

Karen Coyle <[log in to unmask]> wrote of Jeffrey's post:

>... we can lose some of the oddities of MARC  that are making it hard
>to add new information to our record format.

Our experience is the same as Jeffrey's.  Despite its "oddities".
we've found nothing to match MARC21 as a coding system for
bibliographic data.  We can walk from  MARC21 to any system a client
might want, including UKMARC*, but not back again.  This says
something about the granularity and specificity of MARC21.

One of our staff members held a MARC seminar in Geneva for a group
attempting to generate a coding system for bibliographic data.  They
were unaware they were reinventing the wheel, and were astounded that
such an excellent tool existed.  Unfortunately some sales persons of US
ILS in Europe have told their clients that "no one uses fixed fields,
so just ignore them"; the resulting records can not be easily used
across systems.

Just as RDA fails to take full advantage of the received wisdom in
RDA, a fear a replacement coding system will not take full advantage of
the received wisdom  of MARC.

Certainly there are MARC oddities to be removed, e.g. the variation of
the meaning of fixed field values for different genres, the departure
from optimum display order in field tagging (5XX and 33X as prime
examples), splitting of ISBD's material specific area among several
fields, redundancy between fixed and variable field data dating from
when variable fields were less accessible.

>For example, we do not have a way in MARC to associate an identifier  
>with a particular set of subfields within a field.

This is not a need we have experienced, apart from the new 33X fields
in cataloguing a kit.  The expressed need to associate a particular
added entry or subject heading with a particular portion of a resource
is met in MARC (6XX and 7XX $3), but is rarely used.  The wealth of
possibilities in MARC have not been fully utilized, both in what could
be coded, and what use could be made in ILSs of information normally
coded.

>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.  I still remember the disaster which
was PRECIS.

Currently we find making controlled vocabulary data (classification
numbers, main, added, and subject entries) live links in our OPAC to
work just fine.


>We have fields that have used  $a-$z and have nowhere to go. Should
>we have 2-character subfield  xodes? That doesn't solve the problem
>of ordering which seems to  plague some systems.

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.

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.

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