Print

Print


At 07:57 AM 7/31/2006, Sue Wartzok wrote:
>So, out of respect for your knowledge and opinions in general, I 
>would like to know why you value the 440 field.  As I stated in a 
>previous email, I see a transcription field that is also an 
>authority-controllable field as a functional inconsistency.

The 245 field is also a transcribed field; yet the combination of 
1XX+245 is also under authority control when no 240 field is 
present.  (My guess is that this is another spot at which many 
attempts at automated authority control come up short.)

What I object to, if you push me to state things clearly (and I'll do 
it while I've got lots of caffeine going although that's usually when 
I manage to step on someone's toes, so apologies in advance), is the 
endless fiddling with this rigid format that doesn't actually 
represent any kind of measurable advance.  I would be perfectly happy 
if we were to drop the MARC formats altogether and come up with 
something that would help us move forward with more agility. (And 
don't even get me started on RDA.)