The dissertation type is interesting, thanks, Jason. It basically takes 
what WAS a note that essentially changed the meaning of the entire 
record and makes dissertation a type of resource. [1] That is great to 
see. I note that there are two "sub-types" under Work [2]: dissertation 
and cartographic. I would have bet that music would end up there, but it 
isn't. Not to mention serials and seriality. We can take bets on which 
types move out of Work and become subtypes :-). And I can see what you 
mean about scaling.


[1] I also was wrong about their not being a fixed field: there is a 
code for theses. I believe the difficulty in my institution was that the 
code was filled in less often than the note was created. Probably not 
[2] (scroll to bottom)

On 1/28/13 10:37 AM, Jason Ronallo wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 1:04 PM, Karen Coyle <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> As an example, one field that I would greatly miss is the 502 Dissertation
>> Note. Unless things have changed since I was still processing MARC records,
>> the presence of this note is the only way to know that what you have is a
>> dissertation. Obviously folks in academic libraries would want to be able to
>> limit some searches to dissertations. (I'd be happy for "dissertation" to be
>> a value somewhere in the future record -- although we'd still need the
>> information that is in the note, and it might need some special treatment.)
> It appears that Dissertation will be handled through its own type:
> Is this a pattern which is likely to repeat? I wonder if this approach
> will run into some of the same scaling issues of and
> require some sort of external enumeration or additionalType property
> to accommodate all the different types of things collected.
> Jason

Karen Coyle
[log in to unmask]
ph: 1-510-540-7596
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet