Bernhard said:
>One more reason, one might think, to get rid of MARC ASAP.
>Not really, though. Firstly, because it is utterly unrealistic,
>and second. because MARC is flexible enough to be used in
>new software applications that do new tricks with the old
>stuff AND are able to deal with some new data elements in
>novel ways.
Not so new and not so novel. UTLAS in the 1970s used a mix and match
method for entry verification. If a heading did not match, one
subfield at a time was dropped until a portion did match. The later
portions, matching with their own authorities, were then "nested".
You had a string of ASNs representing the entry in the bibliographic
record (or URIs in Karen speak). For persons, $d death dates were
ignored in matching, since it might or might not be there.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__________________________________________________________
