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
|