If this does allow machine parsing (and I'm a bit sceptical - even if it is it certainly it looks like a lot of hard work), it hasn't been designed that way.
To take a simple example
853 20$81$av.$bno.$u6$vr$i(year)$j(month)$wm$x01,07
863 30$81.1$a113-123$i1923-1928
The start and end volumes are in a single field, as are the start and end years - immediately making it harder work for the programmer. And all of this is where they have bothered to use the 853/863 anyway.
I realise that the MARC holdings formats are designed to show quite complex possibilities, but what would be immediately useful (IMO) is broad statements like those offered in link resolver software that can give top level answers...
Owen Stephens
Assistant Director: eStrategy and Information Resources
Central Library
Imperial College London
South Kensington Campus
London
SW7 2AZ
t: +44 (0)20 7594 8829
e: o.stephens_at_imperial.ac.uk
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Next generation catalogs for libraries
> [mailto:NGC4LIB_at_LISTSERV.ND.EDU] On Behalf Of Bernhard Eversberg
> Sent: 19 March 2009 14:39
> To: NGC4LIB_at_LISTSERV.ND.EDU
> Subject: Re: [NGC4LIB] Whose elephant is it, anyway? (the OLE project)
>
> Stephens, Owen wrote:
>
> >> I was thinking CONSER might have the equivalent. At least, MARC
> >> holdings
> >> format does make provisions for that.
> >>
> > Does it? I've never seen MARC summary holdings recorded in a way that
> is easily machine parsable
> >
> That may be, but at least the specs *are* all there:
>
> http://www.loc.gov/marc/holdings/
>
> and more particularly in
>
> http://www.loc.gov/marc/holdings/hd863865.html
>
> What we have looks somewhat simpler.
>
> B.Eversberg
Received on Thu Mar 19 2009 - 10:51:02 EDT