Print

Print


I believe you are missing the point. The evidence is clear -- the vast
majority of the some 3,000 data elements in MARC go unused except for a
small percentage of records in terms of the whole. What isn't there cannot
be indexed or presented in a catalog, no matter how hard you try. In other
words, which fields were coded is the only relevant information. It is the
ONLY relevant information when you are discussing how to move forward.

The one thing you said that I agree with wholeheartedly, is that we should
know what data is useful to users. Yes. That.
Roy


On 11/4/11 11/4/11  10:41 PM, "J. McRee Elrod" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Roy Tennant <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> 
> 
>> "Implications of MARC Tag Usage on Library Metadata Practices"
>> http://www.oclc.org/research/publications/library/2010/2010-06.pdf
> 
> This study told us what fields were in records, not whether those
> fields were utilized in OPACs.  MARC has a wealth if information never
> put to practical use.   Which fields were coded is fairly useless
> information.
> 
> A study of what fields OPACs actually use might be helpful, but that
> still does not tell us what fields might be helpful to patrons if they
> were utilized,'
> 
> 
>    __       __   J. McRee (Mac) Elrod ([log in to unmask])
>   {__  |   /     Special Libraries Cataloguing   HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
>   ___} |__ \__________________________________________________________
>