> The subfields I list above can be used to get the other record.
Yes. But I (and any usual patrons) want to get the other _resource_.
---
A. Soroka
The University of Virginia Library
On Oct 14, 2014, at 7:09 PM, "J. McRee Elrod" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Karen said:
>
>> Mac, linking fields, as in text, are not machine-actionable links
>
> We use them that way. They are called "linking fields" after all.
> Perhaps your IT person is not as clever as ours? Fields 773 and 774
> both contain $u standard report number, $w record control number, $x
> IISSN, $y CODEN, and $z ISBN.
>
> Unless we mean something differing by "linking" I do not understand
> your comment. The subfields I list above can be used to get the other
> record.
>
> UKMARC field 248 is *in* the record for the larger resource, so no
> linking is needed. Field 248, unlike other 24X. may contain full
> data, not just title. The data is there already. (We produce UKMARC
> records for a British client.) I wish the British had held out for
> 248 in MARC21. It is less complex then 774 to manipulate.
>
> I hope the creators of Bibframe will look at UKMARC as well as MARC21.
>
>
> __ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod ([log in to unmask])
> {__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
> ___} |__ \__________________________________________________________
|