J. McRee Elrod schrieb:
... Can't
we just agree to have the first 650 agree with the class number, not
the first 6XX?
Think of the time the cataloguing agency spent mucking about with MARC
field tag order in 5XX and 6XX! Wouldn't it be simpler to have the
two standards/components *agree* on the order of data? And now the
record will be sent off to be deconstructed in display, with
misleading labels substituted for field tags. If we were consistent
about what is where (as in ISBD), labels would not be needed.
It is a card-related feature of MARC to allow (or fail to specify
otherwise) for fields in the 5XX, 6XX, 7XX, 8XX areas to be stored
not in asending numeric order. Some systems do this automatically,
thereby driving old-school catalogers up the wall. One should long
since have disentangled MARC from card display structure. Punctuation
at subfield borders is another remnant of that begone era. Which is
of course NOT to say ISBD ought to be poured out with the bathwater
but only that one ought to be able to supply the punctuation by
software. (UKMARC and Unimarc had been designed that way.)
(Dublin Core explicitly states (if I got that right) that the order
of data elements in a stored record bears no significance.)
It is not only area/element/field selection and order from
transcription through coding to display which need standardization,
but also terminology. The variation of terminology among
standards/components is confusing.
Right. That's one reason verbal labels as designators in a data
structure are not a good idea.
Now to really be reactionay. We have to cope with the invention of
abstruse words to refer to realities we've dealt with for over a
century. Quick, what's the difference between an expression and a
manifestation?
We still speak of works/editions/printings/copies/volumes in our shop.
Couldn't a user study try to sort out what terms are the easiest
to communicate?
> So far no one seems to be picking up on
> the excellent work done by Martha Yee on display standards.
>
... or make any new and different attempt.
B.Eversberg
