Re: arsclist Cataloging

[<stevenc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Ponts here:
1) What is the file structure of the MARC system? I won't go into the
technical
details, but if I can look at the actual file as a digital entity I can
possibly figure
out how to access the information (doesn't work with MS Access, though).
If the fields are saved as ASCII text, and if there is a coherent file
structure
(what does it put in the file for empty fields?) the contents can be
retreived.
2) The problem with the "bibliographic databases" cited is that these,
again,
are proprietary data formats...meaning you need a copy of the cited programs
to see the data, and eithir you can't get them, or you can get them for a
GREAT
big sack of money! Thise creates problems for individual (and poor) users
like
myself! In other words, if MARC can export to xxx, and I don't have and
can't
get xxx, I'm no better off!
Steven C. Barr
----- Original Message -----
From: "David Seubert" <seubert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <ARSCLIST@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, December 13, 2002 6:19 PM
Subject: Re: arsclist Cataloging


> The MARC format is an open standard and was specifically designed for the
> sharing and interchange of catalog records among institutions. RDI (at
> least as it exists in the RLIN database) is in MARC. However, native MARC
> files aren't readily exportable to standard consumer database programs
> because of the hundreds of possible fields in a MARC record. That being
> said, most catalogs (like OCLC/WorldCat) can export their catalog records
> in the formats used by bibliographic databases such as ProCite or EndNote.
>
> David
>
> At 05:15 PM 12/13/2002 -0500, you wrote:
> >One further question: both MARC and RDI are (I assume) proprietary
database
> >programs and/or data formats. To what extent are the data files readable
by
> >or
> >exportable to other standard database programs...even the standard .dbf
> >format,
> >which is still a standard exhange format although its parent application
is
> >long
> >since defunct? Is there some reason why such compatibility is
specifically
> >avoided, or is this a case of nobody having been interested in it?
> >Steven C. Barr
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: "David Seubert" <seubert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >To: <ARSCLIST@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >Sent: Friday, December 13, 2002 4:12 PM
> >Subject: Re: arsclist Cataloging
> >
> >
> > > At 02:20 PM 12/13/2002 -0500, you wrote:
> > > >Library vs private.
> > > >
> > > >It is my understanding that some fields in the MARC cataloging system
are
> > > >not searchable, which means the desired data is there but not
> >independently
> > > >serarchable.
> > >
> > > What is searchable in a database of MARC records is entirely dependent
on
> > > what designers of the software choose to make searchable. There is no
> > > inherently unsearchable data, and keyword indexes often search fields
that
> > > have not been traditionally searchable in library catalogs such as
notes
> > > fields.
> > >
> > > >We might begin with what info libraries want and what collectors
want.  A
> > > >list of fields (non-MARC) from each group might be a useful start.
> > > >
> > > >The argument about cataloging not being discoraphic holds no water
with
> >me-
> > > >the computer can accomodate it.  Why leave important stuff out?
> > >
> > > Library cataloging is based around the whole object and on the concept
of
> > > the "main entry", usually the person with primary responsibility or in
> >some
> > > cases the title. In a discography there isn't the same concept of main
> > > entry and as we all know, discographies are often arranged by catalog
> > > number, matrix or some other information. The data may be the same,
but it
> > > doesn't necessarily translate from one format to the other easily. I
think
> > > reconciling discographic data and MARC data will be the great
difficulty
> >in
> > > getting a database like the AVRL off the ground.
> > >
> > > The main reasons to leave things out are time and money. The more
detailed
> > > the cataloging, the more expensive it is and the larger the backlog
> > > becomes. Anyway, time to get back to cataloging before our backlog
becomes
> > > any larger than it is...
> > >
> > > David
> > > David Seubert, Curator
> > > Performing Arts Collection
> > > Davidson Library Special Collections
> > > University of California
> > > Santa Barbara, CA  93106
> > > (805) 893-5444 Fax (805) 893-5749
> > > mailto:seubert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > http://www.library.ucsb.edu/speccoll/pa/
> > >
> > > -
> > > For subscription instructions, see the ARSC home page
> > > http://www.arsc-audio.org/arsclist.html
> > > Copyright of individual posting is owned by the author of the posting
and
> > > permission to re-transmit or publish a post must be secured
> > > from the author of the post.
> > >
> >
> >-
> >For subscription instructions, see the ARSC home page
> >http://www.arsc-audio.org/arsclist.html
> >Copyright of individual posting is owned by the author of the posting and
> >permission to re-transmit or publish a post must be secured
> >from the author of the post.
>
> David Seubert, Curator
> Performing Arts Collection
> Davidson Library Special Collections
> University of California
> Santa Barbara, CA  93106
> (805) 893-5444 Fax (805) 893-5749
> mailto:seubert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://www.library.ucsb.edu/speccoll/pa/
>
> -
> For subscription instructions, see the ARSC home page
> http://www.arsc-audio.org/arsclist.html
> Copyright of individual posting is owned by the author of the posting and
> permission to re-transmit or publish a post must be secured
> from the author of the post.
>

-
For subscription instructions, see the ARSC home page
http://www.arsc-audio.org/arsclist.html
Copyright of individual posting is owned by the author of the posting and
permission to re-transmit or publish a post must be secured
from the author of the post.