Kathy Glennan said:
>I recommend waiting to see the new MARBI Proposal on encoding
>copyright date before critiquing the possible content. MARBI
>Discussion Paper 2011-DP01 explored several options ...
All options are needlessly complex.
>And no, we cannot reuse 260 $d for copyright date; reusing subfields
>or fields almost never happens due to issues with legacy data.
The new $d could be defined as $d(c), i.e., $d plus copyright sign.
Our programmer would have no difficulty with that.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__________________________________________________________
