 |
 |
Quoting Chad Fennell <[log in to unmask]>: >> 2. MARC21 bib data -- very detailed, well over 1,000 different data >> elements > > I can understand appreciating the richness of #2, but 1k data elements > (choices I have to make) seems, to me, more like evidence of a core > problem with MARC21 than a core strength. > While you can surely create bibliographic data with less, it may not be possible to create detailed bibliographic data with less. One of the issues with MARC is that those data elements attempt to cover every possible resource that libraries may wish to describe, and with the greatest possible detail. Many of the lesser used ones, as has been discussed here, are for less common types of materials or for libraries with a special point of view. A more rational approach, IMO, would create a general description set (probably numbering 20-50), then expanding that for more detail and for different materials. Users of the sets could define the "zones" they wish to use in an application profile, so no one would have to carry around data elements that they are sure they will not use. It would also provide a simple but compatible set for folks who don't want to do the whole "library description" bit. It may be possible to simplify MARC somewhat using different technology assumptions. For example, there are a lot of "parallel title" fields for those cases where a document has its title in more than one language (usually international body publications). If you are able to code the language of the title then you may not need to have all of the parallel title fields. (Not sure that will work... just an example.) I also think we should be able to get rid of many of the fixed fields -- because we should be coding our data as data, not as text that then requires a fixed field so it is easier to process. We will still have many hundreds of fields. BIBO, which many people seem to like, has almost 200 data elements and classes, and is greatly lacking in some areas (e.g. maps, music). Note also that MARC includes many data elements for things that FRBR considers to be separate entities, like people and subjects. Those could have their own sets of elements, which would probably be richer than today's authority record. -- Karen Coyle [log in to unmask] http://kcoyle.net ph: 1-510-540-7596 m: 1-510-435-8234 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting 1-510-435-8234 end_of_the_skype_highlighting skype: kcoylenet