Jonathan Rochkind said:
I'm not sure what the way to surmount this challenge is, but catalogers
and library metadata engineers clearly do need better tools than they
are getting.
I absolutely agree. But at this point in time, after the ridiculous passage
of decades waiting for it, the only
That would be a good solution. That, I think, is incompatible with MARC,
even MARCXML, yeah?
On 3/9/2011 2:50 AM, Bernhard Eversberg wrote:
On 08.03.2011 20:04, Mark Ehlert:
Jonathan Rochkindrochk...@jhu.edu wrote:
As an aside, is there any way to indicate in the Marc that a particular 490
They didn't care about better discovery layers either, until situations
changed to make them care -- in part because of libraries creating their
own open source solutions to challenge the proprietary vendor software.
I think it's probably much harder to do this with cataloging/metadata
entry
Jonathan Rochkind wrote:
That would be a good solution. That, I think, is incompatible with MARC,
even MARCXML, yeah?
Quoting Mark Ehlert (I think):
A better solution might be a 3-level field structure that would
contain two or more complete data fields with all the necessary
subfields.
On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 4:50 PM, Myers, John F. mye...@union.edu wrote:
Jonathan Rochkind wrote:
That would be a good solution. That, I think, is incompatible with MARC,
even MARCXML, yeah?
Quoting Mark Ehlert (I think):
A better solution might be a 3-level field structure that would
OCLC #646122824 Hungarian Americans in the current of history has as a 490 1_
East European monographs ; ‡v DCCLXVI.
I presume this is done because of RDA rule 1.8.2, and the alternative chosen by
LC which indicates we record the form of the numeral that appears on the piece,
whether
Jay Shorten said:
If the item also had a series statement in the book that used
=93766=94, wh= ich form would we transcribe in the 490?
We would transcribe as found in the 490, but standarize for filing
purposes in 830, as suggested by Klossner in his RDA@yourlibrary
Amigos presentation.
__
As an aside, is there any way to indicate in the Marc that a particular
490 corresponds to a particular normalized 830?
I think there is not -- or if there is, it isn't commonly used.
In my writing of software, I haven't been able to find a way for the
software to figure out when a controlled
Jonathan Rochkind rochk...@jhu.edu wrote:
As an aside, is there any way to indicate in the Marc that a particular 490
corresponds to a particular normalized 830?
I think there is not -- or if there is, it isn't commonly used.
There's the $8 available for the 490 and all 8xx fields. But good
Okay, good to know, thanks.
I can make the public discovery service I write make use of it -- but
there's no point in spending time on that if no records are going to.
Indeed it is a vicious circle. But writing software to make use of it
is in fact a LOT easier than somehow getting the
2011/3/7 Shorten, Jay jshor...@ou.edu:
OCLC #646122824 Hungarian Americans in the current of history has as a 490
1_ East European monographs ; ‡v DCCLXVI .
I presume this is done because of RDA rule 1.8.2, and the alternative chosen
by LC which indicates we record the form of the numeral
Agreed.
There's been good work on the 'good discovery' side of things, but
perhaps somewhat less on the 'good cataloging tool' side. Perhaps
because you can make a discovery tool which can be bolted on (with
difficulty) to just about anyone's ILS, and making it doesn't require
changing
As an aside, is there any way to indicate in the Marc that a particular 490
corresponds to a particular normalized 830?
$8 Field link and sequence number is available to do this
--Adam
**
* Adam L. Schiff *
* Principal Cataloger
On 08.03.2011 20:04, Mark Ehlert:
Jonathan Rochkindrochk...@jhu.edu wrote:
As an aside, is there any way to indicate in the Marc that a particular 490
corresponds to a particular normalized 830?
I think there is not -- or if there is, it isn't commonly used.
There's the $8 available for the
14 matches
Mail list logo
