Quoting Deborah Fritz <debo...@marcofquality.com>:
I think that what John actually said was "and *not just* with regard to the 260 field", my emphasis added, i.e., plans are afoot for adding granularity to the 260 *and* other fields. Which is certainly good news—for however long we are going to continue to use MARC for RDA.
Which for some will be a long time, I think, seeing how many smaller libraries I know that have little or no prospect of getting funding for replacing their existing MARC systems. On the other hand, some will need specialist help to rejig their MARC mapping to accomodate RDA records, but that will come rather cheaper than system replacement. It would be a service to us all to be able to incorporate new MARC subfielding (such as in 260) in one operation.
As for legacy data, I don't think that really matters; but if it does, I think routines could be devised to handle most of this -- Terry Reese's MarcEdit program comes to mind.
Hal Cain Melbourne, Australia hec...@dml.vic.edu.au ---------------------------------------------------------------- This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.
