Karen said:

>My guess is that a clear statement of use cases for different types of 
>notes would take this discussion further. What are the uses for 
>different notes? 

The point of note order is that note order be consistent from display
to display, and that there be some logic to that order. In MARC, the
note order created by 5XX is a mess, and I hope Bibframe will improve
in that.  For example: since along with unit name it tells you what
equipment is needed, 538 is helpful just after collation (as opposed t
the redundant new 34X fields), but has a later number; 506 (limitation
on access) and 540 (limitation on use) should be side by side, but are
not so numbered.  Nobody since Avram has followed logic in assigning
MARC tags.

I asssume Bibframe tags will have a set order to be reflected in
dislay; in examples they seem to follow ISBD.  Obviously the order
can't be numeric as in MARC, nor can they be alphabetical.

For consistency of display, Bibframe needs exact note tags, and they
should have a predetermined order.  Some think the order should
reflect the ISBD portion of the description to which the note refers,
which is fine, but I think source of description notes should be at
the end, since they are primarily of interest to cataloguers, not

Would <bf:note1>, ,bf:note2>, etc., with each number referencing an
ISBD area, save having to come up with word labels?  

The end product of either MARC or Bibframe is display of bibliographic
descriptions, and that display should be consistent and patron
friendly.  The display created by some MARC/RDA DVD records, for
example. are complex and confusing. as well as having redundancies;
how often need one say "DVD" in a single record?

What's the point of a new system, it it repeats the errors of the
former one?

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