> -----Original Message----- > From: Code for Libraries [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On > Behalf Of Walter Lewis > Sent: Friday, February 18, 2005 3:34 PM > > Surely *the* most anachronistic exercise is ISBD punctuation. This > was stupid in the original version of MARC and makes even less sense > over the years. Actually, it wasn't in the *original* version of MARC (1968). ISBD punctuation (although existing earlier) became "official" in *cataloging rules* (AACR2) in 1978 (it was already "official" or quasi-official in some previously published AACR[1] chapter revisions). Since MARC transcribed data as prescribed by the cataloging rules, that's how it entered into MARC records. ISBD punctuation served two primary functions, one visually related and the other computer related: (1) the prescribed punctuation ("prescribed" because it was created to be deliberately different from "normal" punctuation) served an information identification function for viewers (staff and public) of the (card) catalog--that is, the prescribed punctuation identified what kind of information followed it, much like MARC tags and subfields identify the kind of information contained in them; and (2) it was hoped that the use of prescribed punctuation *might* make the task of machine-readable conversions (via OCR) of card catalogs to online catalogs easier and more practical (because of the identification function of ISBD punctuation)--it didn't happen that way, but that was one of the hopes. In hindsight, the biggest mistake that the main library organizations in general and the maintainers of MARC at the Library of Congress in particular probably made with ISBD punctuation (or any intersubfield punctuation, for that matter) was to include it rather than to exclude it in MARC records. Excluding such separating punctuation means that the data is much more flexible because it's up to computers to automatically include separating punctuation in displays (screen or print), *if desired*, according to whatever punctuation style (ISBD or otherwise) a library wants. Including the punctuation that's found in printed hardcopy is redundant in a MARC system because the tags and subfields *already* delimit the data. What you end up with is double delimiting. What's really interesting is that interfield ISBD prescribed punctuation (such as space-dash-space or paragraph) *is* excluded in MARC, but not intersubfield punctuation. It's probably possible to strip out current punctuation (ISBD prescribed or older styles) between subfields, but I doubt anybody's (LC, OCLC, etc.) ever going to do it unless there's a groundswell for change in how catalogs should display data. As I said earlier, it should really be up to the display software (whether a cataloging editor or an OPAC) to insert separating punctuation "on the fly" if desired. FWIW. Harvey -- =========================================== Harvey E. Hahn, Manager, Technical Services Department Arlington Heights (Illinois) Memorial Library Desk: 847/506-2644 -- FAX: 847/506-2650 -- E mailto:[log in to unmask] Personal web pages: http://users.anet.com/~packrat