Roy Tennant <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>... which fields were coded is the only relevant information.
If the field is often coded, but never *applied* in an OPAC, that is
very relevant.  The rate of actual application is relevant, not the
number of times coded.

Beingn coded is not being "used".  Applied in an OPAC is being used. 

Some fields are little coded (we don't know the extent to which they
are used) because they apply only to genre which are a small
porportion of our library materials.  I would have been better if
254-258 were one field as they are one area as in ISBD; the one field
would have a higher use rate.

   __       __   J. McRee (Mac) Elrod ([log in to unmask])
  {__  |   /     Special Libraries Cataloguing   HTTP://
  ___} |__ \__________________________________________________________