Print

Print


Karen said:
>
>Also... it might make sense to treat some of the material-specific 
>information (maps, music) as coherent extensions to BF rather than 
>mixing them together in a general "notes" rubric.
 
The major advantage of distinctive note coding, with a system supplied
order, is that the cataloguer need not be concerned with note order,
but leave it to the system (as CONSER advises for serials).  That's
why we use exact MARC coding when possible, e.g., 501 for DVD special
features, 518 for where and when a conference was held.

The present MARC 5XX order of notes is nonsensical, with related data
divided (e.g., 506, 540),  with vital data too late in the sequence
(e.g., 538), and a useful note made obsolete (503).  This is an area
in which I hope Bibframe could be a vast improvement over MARC.

The difficulty I see is long complex labels, as opposed to simple
three numbers.  Language is ambiguous, and word labels subject to
being misunderstood.


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