On Mar 10, 2015 12:07 PM, "Tennant,Roy" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> And that is why this:
> Unless we know exactly how catalogers have used the MARC elements to record data about our items (regardless of which elements our automated systems use or ignore) we don’t know what we have to work with in our existing corpus. If you look, you may be surprised by what you find.

Surprised is being air-assaulted by the 1st battalion, transvestite brigade (I was surprised. Were you surprised? I was surprised.)

The more appropriate reaction to statistical analysis of MARC records, especially if you look at the probability of occurrence of tags/subfields given the presence / absence of other tags/subfields, is one of horror.

It is technically possible for MARC records to be error free. These are denoted in the leader by a value in byte 17 (Evil) of i, indicating an imaginary number. This should not be confused with the OCLC value of I (uppercase).