Re: MARC structure (Was: Re: Ceci n'est pas un catalogue)

From: Bernhard Eversberg <ev_at_nyob> Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2007 09:24:09 +0200 To: NGC4LIB_at_listserv.nd.edu

Alexander Johannesen wrote:
>
>
> Hmm. What about XML as a standard is not elegant?
Indeed it isn't. A format that gobbles up more bytes for tagging than
the data it wraps cannot be elegant. Even gift wrappings nowadays have
to be ecologically sound.

>
> What, exactly, is the difference between ;
>
> <record>
>     <datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0">
>       <subfield code="a">[Interview with Keith McCance&#93;</subfield>
>       <subfield code="h">[sound recording&#93; /</subfield>
>       <subfield code="c">[Interviewer : Bronwyn Benn&#93;.</subfield>
>     </datafield>
> </record>
>
You don't see what I mean? 31 extra bytes for every subfield rather than
2? Where is this more elegant than

245 10 $aInterview with Keith McCance$h[sound recording]$c[Interviewer :
Bronwyn Benn]   ?

> and ;
>
> <record>
>     <title>
>       <main>Interview with Keith McCance</main>
>       <media>sound recording</media>
>       <responsible>Interviewer : Bronwyn Benn</responsible>
>     </title>
> </record>
>
The difference is the language-tied tags. They are not international.
Only numbers are. Terminology chances, and then there you are with
your nice outdated tags. Numbers resist change.

B.Eversberg