 |
 |
On 03/15/2010 06:22 PM, Houghton,Andrew wrote: > Secondly, Bill's specification looses semantics from ISO 2709, as I > previously pointed out. His specification clumps control and data > fields into one property named fields. According to ISO 2709, control > and data fields have different semantics. You could have a control > field tagged as 001 and a data field tagged as 001 which have > different semantics. MARC-21 has imposed certain rules for I won't comment on Bill's proposal, but I'll just say that I don't think you can have a control field and a data field with the same code in a single MARC format. Well, technically it's possible, but in practice everything I've seen relies on rules of the MARC format at hand. You could actually say that ISO 2709 works more like Bill's JSON, and MARCXML is the different one, as in ISO 2709 the directory doesn't separate control and data fields. --Ere -- Ere Maijala (Mr.) The National Library of Finland