still new to this list but do find it fascinating...Mac's point...
>I do like talking in unambiguous MARC field and subfield codes! The
ambiguity of language, and reuse of terms with new meanings, creates
problems.
seems well taken...I was working on a project this spring with a number of
languages that I'm not familiar with...remember looking at MARC records in
Finland and the Netherlands to help understand the MARC records I had
created from another metadata format...the focus was 245 titles both
parallel and multiple...since I know 245 subfields, my questions were
easily answered..
regards,
dana
On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 5:19 PM, J. McRee Elrod <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Karen said:
>
> > Most of these "bad" names are close variations on the LC list,
> >missing ", etc.".
>
> By "names" do you mean relationship terms in $e? Or do you mean the
> name of the person, family, or corporate body in $a? The context
> would seem to suggest you mean relationship terms. Wouldn't be be
> less confusing to call them that?
>
> I do like talking in unambiguous MARC field and subfield codes! The
> ambiguity of language, and reuse of terms with new meanings, creates
> roblems.
>
>
> __ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod ([log in to unmask])
> {__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
> ___} |__ \__________________________________________________________
>
--
Dana Pearson
dbpearsonmlis.com
