20.01.2012 00:15, Stephen Davis:
>
> 1) I absolutely agree that the change we're talking about needs to be
> understood as a "framework" and not simply a new encoding scheme. However,
> this change can't happen without meeting the bibliographic needs of the
> various communities that currently use MARC. It will therefore need to
> include a comprehensive "data dictionary" or something like it that defines
> the full set elements that are known to be used in distributed bibliographic
> applications. And it must "grandfather in" the full set of MARC and
> cataloging-related elements.
>
There are already the element sets in the open metadata registry:
http://metadataregistry.org/schema/list.html
For every MARC field group, like 2XX, there is an element set:
http://metadataregistry.org/schemaprop/list/schema_id/41.html
This list contains 1726 elements, all with sufficiently comprehensive
element names. For example:
http://metadataregistry.org/schemaprop/list/schema_id/41.html
for the element
"hasMiscellaneousInformationInUniformTitleNotPrintedOrDisplayed1NonfilingCharacter",
meaning the 240$g with a 2nd indicator of 1.
Likewise, all other subfields cum indicator values are represented as
separate elements. Hence the large number of 12.670 as of Oct.31, 2011.
B.Eversberg
|