On 1/18/07, Mike Taylor <mike_at_indexdata.com> wrote:
> The point is that an opaque label like 246$4 is entirely explicit and
> does not encourage guesswork. There are pros and cons here, and when
> I said "I'm not sure whether I buy this" I really didn't mean "I'm not
> sure", i.e. it wasn't just a polite way of saying "I don't buy it" :-)
To set the record straight, let's not assume I think MODS is the
answer. I prefer MODS to MARC, yes, but that's only because it's
convenient and already there.
However, wouldn't your argument run into the same problem as any other
token? The interpretation of field definition sounds, to me, like a
wholly different problem. Not one that is solved by neutering
semantics in the field name.
Also, I'm not sure speaking in hypotheticals about tag names that you
make up makes an entirely convincing argument.
By no means do I think this is the worst feature of MARC, however... I
could let this go. It just seems a silly, meaningless piece of legacy
to cling to.
>
> An ounce of recording author surnames and forenames separately within
> MARC would be worth a ton of recoding in XML and renaming the fields.
>
If that ounce could be extended to de-AACR2-ify the other fields, all
the better :)
-Ross.
Received on Thu Jan 18 2007 - 08:37:55 EST