Bernhard said: >One more reason, one might think, to get rid of MARC ASAP. >Not really, though. Firstly, because it is utterly unrealistic, >and second. because MARC is flexible enough to be used in >new software applications that do new tricks with the old >stuff AND are able to deal with some new data elements in >novel ways. Not so new and not so novel. UTLAS in the 1970s used a mix and match method for entry verification. If a heading did not match, one subfield at a time was dropped until a portion did match. The later portions, matching with their own authorities, were then "nested". You had a string of ASNs representing the entry in the bibliographic record (or URIs in Karen speak). For persons, $d death dates were ignored in matching, since it might or might not be there.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca) {__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/ ___} |__ \__________________________________________________________