Thomas said:

>In some ways I think we have been living with unnecessarily
>complicated input forms with MARC as it is.

That depends on the cataloguing module.  The former Utlas, and TLC's
ITS for example, break out fixed fields into separate Windows which
were/are easy to comprehend.  In ITS, with the cursor on the window,
function key F1 gives possible entry values.

A public library which recently selected its new ILS on the basis of
other modules, is now stuck with a time consuming cataloguing module,
which does not allow (for example) a macro to enter field tag and
content.  I'm adding that requirement to the ILS selection cheat sheet
today!  It had never occurred to me to check for that any more than for
a car having a spare tire; my most recent one had a "doughnut" I
discovered too late.  Many cataloguing modules are much more in need
to improvement that our cataloguing rules or coding system.

If Bibframe is doing to be easy for paraprofessional and professional
cataloguers, there will need to be an interface which is easy to

The oft repeated story of a paraprofessional entering the person who
gave a resource to the library as Dublin Core "contributor" points up
the danger of ambiguous word labels.  Any vendor who comes up with a
MARC field tag input screen for Bibframe will probably have good
sales, at least until the present crop of cataloguers retires.

I've yet to see short word labels which identify the difference
between 130 and 240.

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