Kelly McGrath posted:
>http://pages.uoregon.edu/kelleym/KM_MWpresentation.pdf
The author says, among other things, that MARC field 245 is maxed out
for subfields. With number subfields, 26 more can be added. How many
does he want?
Subfields need not be in numerical or alphabetic order, e.g., 245$h,
and 111 subfields since the changes in entry form for conferences.
He also objects to the number codes, and would prefer labels in
English. In our multilingual situation, the language neutrality of
numbers is one of MARC's advantages.
Certainly one has to agree with the author that coding RDA in MARC is
craming a square peg in a round hole, withness two elemements in
260$c. Certainly MARC can not utilise the FRBR WEMI distinctions.
But am I sure I want to?
At least RDA should be delayed until there is a coding system which
can handle it.
I do have difficulties with MARC: the redundancy in fixed field
coding, the inconsistency of fixed field meanings between formats, the
mess which is 5XX number order, the placement of 336-338 which should
be in advance of other data in accord with ISBD Area 0, but I don't
see the difficulties seen by this and others writing abut MARC.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__________________________________________________________
