Actually, you can run into the limits with just a "rich" record -- as
Tom Hickey points out. The case that I have experienced was with the
UCLA film archive which does really detailed cataloging about a film (eg
everybody mentioned in the credits) plus details about the physical
conditions of the copies that they have. Since each field takes at least
16 bytes (directory entry, indicators and one subfield code), adding a
lot of small fields can eat up a whole lot of space. And then long
contents notes or descriptions quickly push up the byte count. So
although we aren't talking about the full text, we are talking about
wanting to add MORE to the records to enrich them.
kc
Sharon Foster wrote:
> I'm guess I'm still not up to speed on the jargon. I thought the field
> length problem was a result of the requirement/desire/call it what you
> will, to incorporate the actual text of the work into what we
> currently refer to as the MARC record.
>
> On 8/31/07, Karen Coyle <kcoyle_at_kcoyle.net> wrote:
> "But what I think you point out above is that the MARC record is
>> essentially the mark-up of a text -- with the text being the result of
>> cataloging."
>
>
--
-----------------------------------
Karen Coyle / Digital Library Consultant
kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://www.kcoyle.net
ph.: 510-540-7596 skype: kcoylenet
fx.: 510-848-3913
mo.: 510-435-8234
------------------------------------
Received on Fri Aug 31 2007 - 12:39:03 EDT