Yes, your observation is correct and I believe that is the habit inherited
from card catalogs. I don't think this kind of distinction is needed when
you use the computer as a tool to process data. Therefore, I think it is a
mistake to maintain this kind of distinction since the MARCs are the data
formats for computer systems.
Cheng-Juei Wu, Ph.D.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Department of Library & Information Science
Fu-Jen University
----- Original Message -----
From: Anne Munkebyaune <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Friday, November 03, 2000 5:54 PM
Subject: Re: DC and MARC
> I think that one of the most important differences between AACRII/MARC
> and DC is that
> MARC-records has a distinction between a discriptive part and search
> entries. That's why information on MARC records sometimes seem to be
> doubled. The basic idea of DC is to create search entries, not to
> "describe". I can't see that DC has an equivalent to the descriptive
> part of AACRII/MARC. But I'm not sure if this distinction between
> description and search elements are considered important by the library
>
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|