Ralph LeVan said:
>Names in some cultures are *really* complicated, but they are all
>jammed into a single subfield with some minimal punctuation to
>separate them.
The worst example of this, I think, is introducing a comma after
surname for Asian names, for which the surname is first in the
language. They are no inverted. That piece of internal punctuation I
would be happy to see go. But if fore names are separately coded with
no internal punctuation, and the ILS introduces a comma after surname,
how would it know not to do so for Asian names?
UKMARC coded fore names as $h, which caused problems in North
America. We once had a microform product with all British fore names
omitted. We also received a microform product is which all title main
entries were missing, because the first indicator was not "1".
Communication between cataloguers and programmers is not always the
best.
More important than anything else is *consistency* in coding; the 1st
indicator 0 for title main entry is an inconsistency; "1" should mean
entry, not added entry. The different placement of filing indicator
in different fields is also an inconsistency. Let's hope Bibframe is
at least internally consistent.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod ([log in to unmask])
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__________________________________________________________
|