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...