Print

Print


Thanks to Library of Congress, the maintaining agency, ISO/DIS 25577 is
publicly available.

http://www.loc.gov/standards/iso25577/

To sum up the differences, MarcXchange relaxes the number of indicators
(other than 2 are allowed).
It is almost usable for other MARC dialects. There is no mechanism for
UNIMARC embedded fields, see
http://www.rusmarc.ru/publish/UNIMARC_XML.pdf

Jörg

On Sat, Mar 7, 2015 at 5:54 PM, Karen Coyle <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> There is an ISO standard that was supposed to address that. [1] However,
> since ISO standards are not open access, it's not possible to see what the
> differences are between that and MARCXML. Open standards always win over
> closed.
>
> kc
> [1] https://www.iso.org/obp/ui/#iso:std:iso:25577:ed-2:v1:en
>
>
> On 3/7/15 7:16 AM, Erik Bertelsen wrote:
>
>> In addition to the citation below, please also remind that MARCXML (at
>> least to some people) references MARC21 (formerly USMARC) specifically and
>> does not necessarily support all MARC formats currently in use.
>>
>> - regards
>> Erik Bertelsen
>> State and University Library Aarhus, DK
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>>
>> Unfortunately, MARCXML is not transitional or transformational. It is a
>> pure serialization of MARC and is not allowed to vary in any way from MARC
>> in ISO 2709 format. MARC and MARCXML are kept in lock step, so none of the
>> advantages of XML over the MARC format are realized.
>>
>> HAD we moved to XML, leaving 2709 behind, some significant improvements
>> could have been made. Alas...
>>
>>
> --
> Karen Coyle
> [log in to unmask] http://kcoyle.net
> m: +1-510-435-8234
> skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600
>