Jeffrey Trimble <[log in to unmask]> wrote:


>I propose:

>1.   Record Length.  We'll need to adjust the Leader positions of
>00-04, and move it to something much higher. ...

2.   Expand the MARC record to have a 4 character numeric tag,
starting with  0001 and continue to 9999.  ...

>3.   Indicator count.  Again, expand it to 3.  We may not use it, but
>let's get rolling.

>4.   Subfield code count.  Again, expand it to 3.  You can then tell
>the computer that after the "delimiter" ($), you have either a 1 or 2
>byte subfield. ...

> We can easily write conversion programs to deal with current MARC
>records. 

Let's hope somebody with the wisdom and power to make decisions
appoints you to head up such a revision of MARC, as opposed to a
replacement of MARC, as a bibliographic coding system.

Your two major posts are the first ones we've seen which reflect the
reality we experience as a cataloguing agency.  Most theorists
envision needs we've never had a client express, as well as often not
meeting the needs they do express, such as where an unknowns city
might be.

Just as AACR2 revisions would have served us better than RDA, so MARC
expansion would serve us better than an untested alternative based on
non library practices.


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