I hate to tell you how far into the semester I was before I realized
that MARC, ISBD, and AACR2 were all independently-developed systems of
notation. To my mind (the mind of a former software engineer) it was
clear that there was some redundancy and complexity that needed to be
eliminated. Then there's the lingering terminology of the "main entry"
and "added entry." Entry into what? A database? I can enter it from
any field I want to. And anyway, we don't literally search each and
every record--it's all been indexed. But cataloging 101 is still
taught as if it's all going to be typed on cards.
I think it's fine to learn about the history of one's profession, but
we shouldn't linger there too long.
On 8/23/07, Hahn, Harvey <hhahn_at_ahml.info> wrote:
> Alexander Johannesen wrote:
> |On 8/23/07, Gaudet, Dodie <dgaudet_at_cmrls.org> wrote:
> |> Just a reminder that those slashes, brackets, etc. have nothing to do
> |> with MARC. That is ISBD punctuation found in AACR2. MARC and AACR2
> |> are two separate things, although they are used together.
> |
> |I think it has been argued quite strongly on this list that they are
> |not separate even though they technically may be so, but that's
> |pedantically arguing that porridge really is milk and grain and that
> |they're two separate things.
>
> MARC (like any other metadata scheme) is a carrier for AACR2 content.
> It's like nearly any audiovisual item: there's content, and there's a
> carrier--and, from a cataloging standpoint, they have always been
> considered as two separate aspects, even though they they may conjoin in
> any given item. The content is always the important thing, and that's
> what's cataloged, merely noting the particular carrier (or format).
>
> ISBD punctuation is data subfielding or delimiting for the eyes, whereas
> MARC tagging or subfielding is delimiting for automation. ISBD
> punctuation is defined as being *prefixed* to data content to designate
> what the *succeeding* content is (just like MARC delimiters).
> Unfortunately, since this punctuation at the beginning of data gets in
> the way of indexing, it was mandated by MARC leadership to be
> transcribed by catalogers as a *suffix* in the *preceding* subfield
> (bassackwards if I ever saw it!) or, in certain cases, omitted
> altogether. ISBD was developed for the visual display of cataloging
> data and for data content determination and, therefore, in my opinion,
> is "un-usefully" redundant in a MARC system, since it's trying to do the
> same thing that MARC indicators and delimiters already do--only screwed
> up by MARC leadership 30 years ago. It now serves virtually no useful
> bibliographic function in an online record; like the human appendix,
> it's just there, taking up space (with all sorts of fine points about
> how you have to enter the punctuation just right), and that's about all
> you can say about it. Tongue in cheek, generations of catalogers have
> had to do unnecessary work, creating millions and millions of ISBD
> punctuation marks, just so computers didn't have to! In nearly all
> cases, ISBD punctuation can be algorithmically machine-generated on the
> fly from the existing MARC subfielded content for purposes of displayed
> or printed output. (In the few cases where there's a problem, I'm of
> the opinion that small changes or enhancements to MARC itself would
> resolve them.) I've argued the non-need of ISBD in MARC records
> repeatedly in cataloging forums to no avail. Oh, well...
>
> Harvey
>
> --
> ===========================================
> Harvey E. Hahn, Manager, Technical Services Department
> Arlington Heights (Illinois) Memorial Library
> 847/506-2644 - FX: 847/506-2650 - Email: hhahn(at)ahml(dot)info
> OML & Scripts web pages: http://www.ahml.info/oml/
> Personal web pages: http://users.anet.com/~packrat
>
--
Sharon M. Foster, B.S., J.D., 0.58 * (MLS)
F/OSS Evangelist
Any opinions expressed here are entirely my own.
Received on Thu Aug 23 2007 - 19:17:28 EDT