> -----Original Message-----
> From: Next generation catalogs for libraries
> [mailto:NGC4LIB_at_LISTSERV.ND.EDU] On Behalf Of Karen Coyle
> Sent: 4 iunie 2010 17:11
>
>
> Dan, what you are saying here is that some MARC subfields are
> redundant with ISBD punctuation, which is true. This is an
> ongoing argument -- why do we do both when one or the other
> would do that job?
>
> That said, and in the grand tradition of inconsistency that
> is our data legacy, not all fields can be parsed using their
> punctuation.
He, he... I found that back in 1987, when I tried to convert "ISBD records" (i.e. classical cards in WordStar files) ! :-(
Back to my question...
The question in the subject is brutal, in order to attract attention. I know it is a blasphemy :-)
Of course the subfields are useful (as the TEI tags in scholarly texts)... But:
"Does its usefulness justify the effort ?" That was my real question.
And, of course, we can refine it:
All subfields are useful enough to justify the effort to delimit them ?
I thought we are looking for reducing the cost of cataloguing. Or not ?
Dan
Received on Fri Jun 04 2010 - 10:31:58 EDT