Michael,
For institutions that catalog digital objects in MARC or link to digital
surrogates as UT Arlington does, my recommendation is to use the 856 as follows:
856 41 $u http://www.uta.edu/library/ccon/images/thumbs/00384Thumb.jpg $3
thumbnail image
856 41 $u
From the perspective of a programmer, rather than a cataloguer, my opinion is
firmly no, HTML does not belong in your MARC records.
In application development, general best practice is to separate information
systems into layers, splitting data from business logic and presentation
logic. MARC
On Jun 22, 2009, at 5:53 PM, Cloutman, David wrote:
From the perspective of a programmer, rather than a cataloguer, my
opinion is firmly no, HTML does not belong in your MARC records.
In application development, general best practice is to separate
information systems into layers,
Hiya,
I guess I'm the one who's got to step up to the self-slaughtering
altar, but the fact that a lot of our systems break or don't know how
to handle HTML is despicable. I'm sure you guys are familiar with RSS
/ Atom, and because in there we *expect* HTML and therefore make sure
our back-ends
Don't think for a second that purity of the data format in any shape
or form is the definition of its usefulness.
We'd be screwed if that was the case. ISBD punctuation has been in the
MARC record from the very beginning. Theoretically, it should be
totally unnecessary since the data is already
On 6/22/09 6/22/09 4:17 PM, Alexander Johannesen
alexander.johanne...@gmail.com wrote:
Even *if* HTML in MARC records probably is a bad idea.
Yes, it's such a bad idea it's hard to know where to begin. I'd like to
thank Kyle Banerjee for bringing up ISBD. This is like the HTML of the 60's
in
