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
