Misha Wolf replied to my posting on subelements.
He referred to this:
>
> DC.Creator.PersonalName
>
> and:
>
> DC.Creator.PersonalName.Address
>
and I think it demonstrates why the older subfield technology we use in
USMARC (or other formats) is better: it keeps together what belongs
together. Whereas with DC (correct me if I'm wrong) every field is
repeatable and none is mandatory, and no order is prescribed. In the case
of personal names, how can software determine what name and what address
belong together? Esp. in the case when an address is given for one name
but not for another.
With XML, this can be avoided, sure, but look at this:
> >
> > All of this is much clearer when written out using XML (no, this isn't RDF):
> >
> > <DC:Creator>
> > <Name>Misha Wolf</Name>
> > <Address>85 Fleet Street</Address>
> > <Type>Person</Type>
> > </DC:Creator>
> >
Does that look better than this:
100 $a Wolf, Misha $b Person $c 85 Fleet Street
(no true subfield codes here, just made up for demonstration of principle)
Now everybody will cry out, "that's horribly cryptic, and XML or
HTML will not need to be read or written by humans, it will all be encoded
and managed by software. But that's true for MARC too. And I fail to see
(after 20 years of library computing and programming) why XML should be
preferred over USMARC tagging (which is not the best of formats either),
which, I repeat it, keeps things together that belong together, and in a
very efficient way.
B.E.
Bernhard Eversberg
Universitaetsbibliothek, Postf. 3329,
D-38023 Braunschweig, Germany
Tel. +49 531 391-5026 , -5011 , FAX -5836
e-mail [log in to unmask]
|