> Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2007 17:05:04 -0700
> From: Karen Coyle <kcoyle_at_KCOYLE.NET>
> Subject: Re: Ceci n'est pas un catalogue
>
> Harvey is right that we are working with some rather strict,
> self-imposed constraints -- clearly ones that did not seem
> constraining
> at the time that the MARC "instance" was developed from the full range
> of Z39.2 possibilities.
>
> As for options, I refer to my blog post:
> http://kcoyle.blogspot.com/2007/08/marcxchange.html
> which I think gains us more than remaining with the Z39.2
> structure, but
> that would build on the data we have today. I'm not saying it's THE
> answer, but it never hurts to consider the options.
Thanks for pointing that out, Karen. Looks interesting.
> Hahn, Harvey wrote:
> Since no known MARC records have a length anywhere
> > near approaching the maximum 99999 value,
>
> is unfortunately not true. When I was working on the UC MELVYL system,
> there were libraries that had to truncate records from their databases
> at the 99999 limit in order to export them in MARC. The
> internal record
> format did not have the MARC limitations.
The 99999 limit is maybe the most burning problem with the current
MARC21 implementation. Other possible changes--length of tags, fields,
indicators, etc. just aren't going to happen because there is no
immediate practical need for them. If there were to be a work-around for
record length I think the simplest would be to agree on a new, alternate
record length--say, eight digits--and extend the leader length
accordingly. A simple check for the number of numeric characters at the
beginning of the record would indicate whether the record was in the
"classic" or the "extended" format.
But the move to XML is inevitable and will happen rather quickly when
comes. I have hardly worked with MARXML records at all, simply because I
haven't had to and because I have twenty years of familiarity with
Z39.2/ISO2709 (I still use a 16-bit Visual Basic record browser I wrote
years ago). But it's high time we made the switch and opened ourselves
up to the more complicated structural changes, not to mention the
obvious advantages of going mainstream. I only wish MARCXML weren't so
verbose (who does it really help to spell out "subfield" in full?).
Mike
--
Michael Kreyche
Associate Professor
Libraries and Media Services
Kent State University
Received on Sat Aug 25 2007 - 06:48:42 EDT