I understand the need for the $8 when a sub-sequence of fields crosses a
MARC "block" (i.e. linking 6xx fields in a bibliographic record with 7xx
fields that represent constituent entries, as in many music records),
but I don't understand why linking is needed within a block like the
5xx. It was my understanding that within a block the fields are in the
directory in the order in which they should be maintained. This is how
it is done for the 6xx block, in which the first 6xx corresponds to the
classification code.
Is this proposal to make up for systems that don't maintain the order of
fields in the record?
--
-------------------------------------
Karen Coyle
Digital Library Specialist
http://www.kcoyle.net
Ph: 510-540-7596 Fax: 510-848-3913
--------------------------------------
