Nate Trail:
>If it's in a MARC record, there's no need to guess, because the subfields
>are already parsed parts. Title proper is 245$a, subtitle is 245$b, etc.
Most patrons never see the MARC record. I'm talking about the OPAC display.
I know of no OPAC which displays the subfield codes. A few allow
patrons to click "MARC", but I've never seen anyone but a cataloguer
do that.
While if viewed, the MARC subfield codes parse parts, only a tiny
minority of people would be able to read with understanding a Bibframe
html marked up record. They are dependent on the display based on
that record. That display needs punctuation. Punctuation is
more likely to be consistent from system to system if in the record.
ISBD is the most successful internatonal bibliographic standard ever;
I hate to see it abandoned. My only argument with it is seeing the
period ending an element as introducing the next, and not considering
alternate title as other title information.
People seem to be overly optimistic about the ability of ILSs, and
their affordability. We have clients which can't load MARC*. They
certainly will not be able to load Bibframe.
*For such clients we export what their ILS requires, e.g., all
subjects (persons, corporations, conferences, uniform titles, topics,
places, genres) in one "Subject" field, separate by demarkers.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod ([log in to unmask])
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__________________________________________________________
|