Hello Chums
Before we get carried away by the seeming inefficiency of a format that is so little used (i.e. 10 to 20 % of fields). We need to keep in mind the Pareto principle - that 80% of the use is accounted for by 20% of the items. Every item has a 245 far fewer items have a 511 - therefore the field is less used
This seems reasonable in the context of cataloging - where the major portion of the "day to day"  material exhibits a low level of variety in terms of the fields required (basic book - no edition - no series - no notes etc)
Also you need to filter out those "either / or" type fields that relation to classification or standard number.
You could build the argument round the "fields you don't use" being one of the strengths of the format!
May the debate you have flourish - and be reported so those of us on the European side of the pond can keep up to speed.
Best wishes
Keith V. Trickey
Senior Lecturer
School of Business Information
Liverpool John Moores University


From: Discussion List for issues related to cataloging & metadata education & training on behalf of Shawne Miksa
Sent: Tue 5/22/2007 9:02 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: "Informing the Future of MARC: an empirical approach"

We have published some papers during the past two years and we have project reports on the MCDU website ( ) but we will get numerous papers out of this in the coming year. The final project report is due to IMLS at the end of this year.

For the ALA presentation we will have some handouts with data for purposes of illustration, but no formal paper as of yet.

Shawne D. Miksa, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor
School of Library and Information Sciences
University of North Texas
email: [log in to unmask]
office 940-565-3560  fax 940-565-3101

>>> Judy Weedman <[log in to unmask]> 5/22/2007 2:42 PM >>>

Is there, or will there be, any publication of these papers and research?