Print

Print


J.,

This raises some climate change questions. Imagine we are updating the validation rules for MARC $0 in these cases:

http://www.loc.gov/marc/bibliographic/bdx00.html
http://www.loc.gov/marc/bibliographic/bdx10.html
http://www.loc.gov/marc/bibliographic/bdx11.html
http://www.loc.gov/marc/bibliographic/bdx30.html

True or false: values that start with the letters "http" should be treated as valid.

If the answer is true, here is a follow up question. Should the traditional "(XXX)YYYY" form of $0 be treated as a separate field entry or is $0 within a field repeatable? I wonder because more and more authority files don't bother registering in the traditional form.

If either form of identifier is acceptable, can they be reconciled using MARC?

What about constructed headings where at least some of the pieces can be controlled? Can $0 be used there too, without colliding with the 1st case?

One conclusion from this riddle might be that opaque identifiers are inherently evil and only transparent names (aka "strings") can be trusted in the long haul. Unique names seems be harder to come by, though. It's sad, but true.

"Jeff"

> On Jan 31, 2015, at 8:10 PM, J. McRee Elrod <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> 
> Robert said:
> 
>> * There's more future than there is past.
> 
> 
> That's debatable.  Doesn't it depend on what we do about climate change?
> 
> The whole linked data effort may depend on resources not too long available.
> 
> 
>   __       __   J. McRee (Mac) Elrod ([log in to unmask])
>  {__  |   /     Special Libraries Cataloguing   HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
>  ___} |__ \__________________________________________________________