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