It is very good that this problem has been taken into a Task Group.
Anyhow I am not very happy of the suggested algorithm. A simple filing
subfield would serve easily in the sorting - or maybe we both mean a
same kind of solution and it is just described differently?
I also would like to add the subfields "n" of 130, 240 etc. to this Task
Group. There is much to be sorted eg. in music.
Liisa S.
Hugh Taylor wrote:
>
> Liisa,
>
> The Program for Cooperative Cataloging's Standing Committee on
> Automation has a Task Group addressing this problem (or what my reading
> leads me to think is the same problem). It might be worth having a look
> at the Task Group's charge:
> http://www.loc.gov/catdir/pcc/tgsernumb02.html
> --
> Hugh Taylor
> Head of Cataloguing, Cambridge University Library
> West Road, Cambridge CB3 9DR, England
>
> email: [log in to unmask] fax: +44 (0)1223 339973
> phone: +44 (0)1223 333069 (with voicemail) or
> phone: +44 (0)1223 333000 (ask for pager 036)
--
****************************************************
Liisa Sten
Helsinki University Library , Network services
e-mail [log in to unmask]
tel. +358 9 1914 4298, fax +358 9 753 9514
****************************************************
