Skip
repetitive navigational links
L-Soft  -  Home of  the  LISTSERV  mailing list  manager LISTSERV(R) 14.5
Skip repetitive navigational links
Previous messageNext messagePrevious in topicNext in topicPrevious by same authorNext by same authorPrevious page (January 2004)Back to main MARC pageJoin or leave MARCReplyPost a new messageSearchProportional fontNon-proportional fontLog in
Date:         Fri, 2 Jan 2004 10:26:56 PST
Reply-To:     MARC <[log in to unmask]>
Sender:       MARC <[log in to unmask]>
From:         Joe Altimus <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:      Re: MARBI proposal no. 2004-03 (Privacy of Fields 541,
              561 and 583)
Comments: To: [log in to unmask]

The situation that J. McRee Elrod mentions is one in which a field is *always* suppressed. I agree that MARC 21 does not have to be concerned with that case. The situation that RLG has is different, however. The 541 or 583 field from a particular data source does not always require special treatment in a union catalog display or record export; only when the contributor deems it is required. A locally defined indicator value "9" could be used by RLG and all its contributors to mark the privacy of a field, avoiding the need to modify MARC 21. However, the problem with using a local defined value is the potential that some RLG contributors may have already used that indicator value for their own local purposes. Having a MARC 21 defined indicator value to mark the privacy of a field would avoid that potential problem, facilitating the exchange of data between RLG and its contributors. This seems to me a legitimate matter for MARBI. Joe Altimus RLG Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2003 10:56:54 -0800 Reply-To: [log in to unmask] Sender: MARC <[log in to unmask]> From: "J. McRee Elrod" <[log in to unmask]> Organization: Special Libraries Cataloguing, Inc. Subject: Re: MARBI proposal no. 2004-03 (Privacy of Fields 541, 561 and 583) Comments: To: [log in to unmask] Comments: cc: [log in to unmask] To: [log in to unmask] In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> >RLG's proposal makes the case for marking private information in fields >such as the 541 and the 561 so that it can be masked within the context >of a union catalog. It would seem to me that this is *totally* a matter between the local library and its systems vendor and/or bibliographic utility, and not properly the concern of MARBI at all. We have customers who what 362 suppressed in their book catalogues because it is mistaken as holdings for example. That would seem to me to be between us the the library. The same would apply to what fields are shown in an OPAC MARC display, whether in a local or union catalogue. __ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod ([log in to unmask]) {__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/ ___} |__ \__________________________________________________________ To: [log in to unmask] cc: BL.CJA


Back to: Top of message | Previous page | Main MARC page

LISTSERV.LOC.GOV CataList email list search Powered by LISTSERV email list manager