Autocatters (with copy to USMARC):
One person at LC recently asked on the list USMARC whether it did not
make sense to record in MARC 300 the electronic extent of computer
files, in the absence of physical extent.
Another person at LC responded with the AACR2 rule saying no collation
for such non physical items.
Neither made the point that MARC does not equal AACR.
While I certainly think the rules should catch up with the fact that
extent is no longer physical for e-materials, and provide directions for
recording sizes of e-files in meaningful terms as collation, is there
anything in the mean time which prevents MARC 300$a being defined as
the appropriate place to record non physical extent, with other
characteristics in 300$b?
It seems to me that this should apply equally to remote electronic
files, and to files installed to libraries' hard disks, as opposed to
being used on the carriers upon which they arrive. Describing the
original carrier (as most seem to do) creates the erroneous impression
that there is a item which can be borrowed and used outside the library.
Describing the item "in hand" is going to have to become an outdated
statement. We are increasingly describing material which can not be
held "in" a hand.
--
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod ([log in to unmask])
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing Victoria, B.C., Canada
___} |__ \__________________________________________________________
|