J. McRee Elrod wrote:
> "Pat Riva" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>>I'd like to point out that the association of AACR area 3 data with
>>the 251-258 block in MARC 21 isn't very good.>
>
> So what happens when we run out of numbers in 25X for area 3
> information for specific media? All the information there is medium
> specific, which is what the original nonbook ISBD (I was on the working
> group) had in mind when we initially created it. It was the second
> ISBD; ISBD(G) did not yet exist.
>
><snip> On the other hand, it might be easier to base
> print constants on 25X indicators.
>
> Just as 260-261 were combined, so should be 254-258, and to
> include any future medium specific information.
Skimming through the just-released minutes of the MARBI meeting of last
June, I note the following (s.v. Proposal 2003-05):
"John Attig (OLAC) felt that the proposal was straightforward and thus,
did not require a lot of discussion. Morever, he stated that since the
proposed changes were needed by a specific community, MARBI should
attempt to grant them. Rebecca Guenther (LC) however, was concerned that
since format integration, it has not been the practice of the MARC
Advisory Committee to define specific data elements for specific types
of materials. Data elements in the MARC 21 formats should be applicable
to all types of materials."
That seems to urge caution in defining new material-specific fields. On
existing material-specific fields (and scatter of related information),
the horse has presumably long since left the stable; but why open more
stalls?
On the human level, the more different places we have to code, the
likelier it is that errors will occur.
Hal Cain
Joint Theological Library
Parkville, Victoria, Australia
hal@jtl.vic.edu.au ** new e-mail address **
[log in to unmask] ** new e-mail address **
