I agree with you Karen. As I stated during the MARBI discussion VTLS Inc.
handles the sorting of numbers the way you describe.
John Espley
VTLS Inc.
-----Original Message-----
From: MARC [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of Karen Coyle
Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2002 9:42 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Filing subfields to title fields
There are systems that solve this problem by padding all numbers to some
set length (i.e. 8) in the indexing and sorting keys in the system. I don't
believe that it's terribly difficult to do so I don't understand why a MARC
solution is being sought. Can anyone enlighten me? Are systems vendors
saying it isn't possible?
kc
At 08:54 AM 4/30/2002 -0500, Gary L. Strawn wrote:
>A PCC task force is currently studying the subfield $v problem, which was
>in part recently the subject of MARBI discussion paper 2001-DP06. A draft
>report is due at ALA in Atlanta. Whether the technique to be proposed for
>$v in series headings will be applicable also to $n in series and other
>fields remains to be demonstrated.
>
>At 09:10 AM 4/30/02 -0400, account for net dev and marc wrote:
>>The numerical order of several title fields (eg. 130, 240, 245, 630, 740
>>with |n and 490, 440 with |v) in a database is in most cases incorrect
>>because it is difficult for a library system to sort numerics within a
>>tag (1, 11, 2, 22, 23, 3 etc.) in a logical order.
>
>
>Gary L. Strawn, Authorities Librarian, etc.
>Northwestern University, 1935 Sheridan Rd., Evanston IL 60208
>e-mail: [log in to unmask] voice: 847/491-2788 fax: 847/491-8306
>Forsan et haec olim meminisse iuvabit.
----------------------------------------------
Karen Coyle [log in to unmask]
University of California Digital Library
http://www.kcoyle.net 510/987-0567
----------------------------------------------