Modifying the interpretation of the length field would break 40 years
of existing MARC software (and many would say "thank goodness" -
backward compatibility can be overrated and used as a subtle and
harmful weapon to stifle innovation). It is now hard to imagine how
expensive each character was to store and process in the era when the
original MARC format was designed. That this original format is a
deterrent to innovation in library systems is not the fault of
original designers of MARC, but a condemnation of those who've rested
on their laurels.
Regards,
Kent Fitch
On 9/21/07, Sharon Foster <vsa.software_at_gmail.com> wrote:
> "What do I do if I want to place an abstract in my MARC record and it is
> 10,000 long? I can't do that because the data structure won't accommodate
> it."
>
> I don't know enough about the other two problems to suggest a solution, but
> this one seems relatively easy. Modify the definition of the length field so
> that if the first character is an 'E' (or choose your favorite character
> that's not 0 through 9) then there is, by definition, an extended length
> field where the next nine (not four) characters comprise the length field.
> Repeat as needed.
>
> Why isn't that possible?
Received on Sat Sep 22 2007 - 01:34:22 EDT