 |
 |
Hi, On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 10:11 AM, Terry Reese <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > I was so hoping someone would bring up position of MARC fields. > Everything Kyle says is true -- and I would follow that up by saying, no one > will care, even most catalogers. In fact, I wouldn't even resort the data to > begin with -- outside of aesthetics, the sooner we can get away from > prescribing some kind of magical meaning to field order (have you ever > read the book on determining 5xx field order, I have -- it's depressing; > again, who but a cataloger would know) we'll all be better off. :) Indeed, field order is not a great way to convey meaning, is not going to migrate well to RDF, and there are few practical reasons to be too worried about it -- although some OPACs do at least display subject headings links in the order that they were entered in the record. However, some catalogers in my experience do care, and even if only for the sake of inter-personal harmony, avoiding unnecessary reordering of MARC fields can be a win. Regards, Galen -- Galen Charlton Manager of Implementation Equinox Software, Inc. / The Open Source Experts email: [log in to unmask] direct: +1 770-709-5581 cell: +1 404-984-4366 skype: gmcharlt web: http://www.esilibrary.com/ Supporting Koha and Evergreen: http://koha-community.org & http://evergreen-ils.org