Although it's useful and interesting to see how the MARC fields have been used and we need to know that to make plans for going forward, I think the really important (and harder) question is what fields and subfields should we be using.
OLAC (Online Audiovisual Catalogers) has been lobbying for some time for additional MARC fields or subfields (or in some cases modifications to the instructions) in order to provide better coded access to aspects of film and video that we think are important. Now if we could just get the data populated and get systems to use the data...
Kelley McGrath
kmcgrath_at_bsu.edu
-----Original Message-----
From: Karen Coyle <lists_at_kcoyle.net>
Date: Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 1:02 PM
Subject: Re: [NGC4LIB] Are MARC subfields really useful ?
To: NGC4LIB_at_listserv.nd.edu
Quoting Janet Hill <Janet.Hill_at_COLORADO.EDU>:
>
>
> And Karen, does my memory fail me, or haven't there already been (relatively) recent studies about the utility of MARC fields? Admittedly it's a moving target, as systems and expectations evolve.
>
The only one that I'm aware of is the Moen/Miksa study of how
frequently fields and subfields appear in OCLC records. I don't know
that anyone has been able to define "utility" in this context, but
would love to see if it they did (or even attempted to)
kc
Received on Fri Jun 04 2010 - 15:16:26 EDT