At 01.52 19/11/03, Morbus Iff wrote:
My assumption at the time was that the above MARC::Record methods also applied to MARC::Field objects, allowing creations like this:
my $author = MARC::Field->new( '100',1,'', a => 'Logan, Robert K.', d => '1939-' );
my $title = MARC::Field->new( '245','1','4', a => 'The alphabet effect /', c => 'Robert K. Logan.' );
to be re-written as:
my $author = MARC::Field->new; $author->author_name('Logan, Robert K.'); $author->author_data('1939-');
my $title = MARC::Field->new; $title->something("The alphabet effect /'; $title->authority( $author->author_name );
Is that something anyone would be interested in? I suspect there are a huge
amount of problems with the approach (most prominently that the idea of
using tag numbers was to reduce typing in the first place), but has anyone ever
had some non-MARC-expert intern try to modify some code and screw it up?
Would "English"'d methods like this be helpful?
In fact I don't subscribe this type of changes. Why ? Because they hard coded in the module the USMARC/MARC21 standard.
There different flouvers of MARC, the Library of Congress mantains USMARC <now MARC21>.
For example I use Unimarc, mantained from IFLA.
A concise Unimarc <until update 4> is avaible from: http://www.ifla.org/VI/3/p1996-1/concise2.pdf
A full Unimarc <until update 3> is avaible from: http://www.ifla.org/VI/3/p1996-1/sec-uni.htm
The differences between MARC21 and Unimarc are many; a good documentation is avaible from:
http://www.loc.gov/marc/unimarctomarc21.html <update to August 2001>.
From example there are differences also in the Record Leader !!.
Bye
Zeno Tajoli [EMAIL PROTECTED] CILEA - Segrate (MI) 02 / 26995321
