On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 10:43 AM, Galen Charlton <gmcha...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi, > > On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 10:15 AM, Smith,Devon <smit...@oclc.org> wrote: >> I think it's a mistake to get hung up on the leader being "next to" the >> fields or the indicators being "next to" the subfields. The leader and >> indicators aren't really different than fields and subfields. They were >> given special treatment in ISO 2709 due to the limitations of ISO 2709. >> If we're moving forward, we shouldn't pull those anachronistic >> distinctions forward with us. > > Well, code that is working with MARC qua MARC does have to deal with > the distinctions, so even though I agree with your point about the > leader being effectively just another fixed field and the indicators > being effectively just subfields, I prefer having the bit of > syntactical sugar that MARC-in-JSON provides. That said, my main > preference is that we not unnecessarily multiply the number of JSON > representations of MARC in actual use. >
As for me, I'm fine with either point of view. Just thought I'd bring it up in case it helped. Brad
