Roy Tennant said:

>Could we please not make the mistake of thinking every field is worth the

Could we please also not make the mistake of thinking a field is not
important because it is only relevant to a particular genre, therefore
appears only in select records?  There is also no correlation between
a tags appearance, and its utilization in OPACs.

>Of the fields below (see my report below), some do not appear at all
>within the WorldCat aggregation.

While OCLC may have changed obsolete tags, e,g,, 503, they remain in
local databases, and are imported via Z39,50.  If local libraries are
to crosswalk to Bibframe from MARC, that information would be lost,
even if those tags do not exist in OCLC.

And some of these tags are more vital than come tags which are
included.  How many 243s are there in OCLC?  Fewer than 245$h and
several other omitted tags I suspect.  Frequency does not seem to the
determining factor is the present list of Bibframe terms for fields.

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