 |
 |
Bill's format would allow there to be a control field and a data field with the same tag, however, so it's all good either way. Ere Maijala wrote: > 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 > >