W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-zig@w3.org > March 2003

RE: NORZIG proposed new bib-1 Use attributes

From: Liv Aasa Holm <Liv.A.Holm@jbi.hio.no>
Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2003 09:50:03 +0100
To: "Larry E. Dixson" <ldix@loc.gov>, www-zig <www-zig@w3.org>
Message-ID: <3E7980BD@p48-r508-06736>

Thanks for these comments.  We tried to find existing codes for the fields 
we need.
IF 1075 in fact is form/genre I agree in the proposition of renaming this 
USE-value in order to make this more clear.

When referring to MARC21 (and other formats) we implisitly understood that 
the codes defined there are to be used.  We can put this into writing.

The nationality is in fact the country code.

All the proposed new terms are actually used in our systems.  We could have 
just decided they were of local interest and chosen values in the 5000 - 
10000 interval.  
But looking at them we thought others might be useing them also, and made 
the proposal.

And, yes og course: bib-1 is a big can (trash or not), but it is the 
attribute set being used.

Liv A. Holm


===== Original Message from "Larry E. Dixson" <ldix@loc.gov> at 19.03.03 
20:42
>One of the requested new Use attributes (Subject--genre/form) is, in my
>opinion, already present.  I believe that Use attribute "1075" is the
>genre/form subject search.  Confusion is being caused by the name of
>this attribute in the current Bib-1 attribute list.  Attributes 1073-1079
>were given the following names:
>
>  1073  Subject-name-conference
>  1074  Subject-name-corporate
>  1075  Subject-name-form
>  1076  Subject-name-geographical
>  1077  Subject-name-chronological
>  1078  Subject-name-title
>  1079  subject-name-topical
>
>I think that the word "name" should be removed from 1075, 1077, 1078, and
>1079, and that 1075 should be renamed "Subject-form/genre" (or
>"Subject-genre/form").  With this change, I think that NORZIG should use
>1075.
>
>I'm not familiar with a couple of these attributes (UNIMARC/NorMARC) and
>I haven't taken the time to look them up.  I'll just ask a dumb question
>about the "Nationality code".  Are these two-character codes that can
>appear in the 7XX $c the same as the International Country Codes?  If
>that's the case, we should say that in the description.
>
>I don't have a problem with adding these attributes to Bib-1.  In fact,
>it seems appropriate when they are compared to attributes that are
>already present.
>
>I also don't have a problem with adding the "Composition code" and
>the "Intellectual level" code.  We already have a number of code
>searches in Bib-1 (e.g., Language (54), Geographic Area Code (55),
>Organization code (56), Microform generation (61), Record type (1001),
>Bibliographic level (1021), and Map scale (1024).  These two seem to
>fit right in.  Is NORZIG going to use the codes listed in MARC 21?
>(It would be very helpful to cite the authoritative code list in
>the description.)
>
>The fact that the Composition code will be used to search music and sound
>recordings doesn't bother me either.  Bib-1 already has a number of Use
>attributes that can be used to search music materials (e.g., values 51,
>1025, 1185-1195, 1206-1208).  Therefore, I say go ahead and add the MARC
>composition code search to Bib-1.
>Larry
>
>On Wed, 19 Mar 2003, Mike Taylor wrote:
>
>> > Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 17:13:47 -0500
>> > From: Ray Denenberg <rden@loc.gov>
>> >
>> > NORZIG has proposed several new bib-1 Use
>> > attributes.  See
>> > http://www.loc.gov/z3950/agency/proposals/norzig-bib1-proposal.html
>> >
>> > Please comment by April 18.
>>
>> I have reservations about plenty of these -- quite apart from sharing
>> Barbara's distaste for _any_ new BIB-1 attributes -- but I wonder
>> whether it's even worth discussing.  We all know BIB-1 is a garbage
>> can, and it's hard to see that it makes much difference exactly how
>> much garbage is contains.  So my first instinct was just to shug and
>> say, what the hey, if NORZIG wants 'em, let it have 'em.
>>
>> That said, several of these seem clearly not to belong to a
>> bibliographic attribute set: Composition (in the musical sense),
>> Compression and Format catch the eye.  Also, possibly Equinox -- in so
>> far as I understand what it is, which isn't very far.
>>
>> The others -- Intellectual level, EAN, NLC, CRCS, Nationality Of
>> Author, Subject Genre, Subject Occupation, Subject Function and
>> Edition -- seem reasonable enough bibliographic access points, but I
>> agree with Ralph that the proposed search-vocabularies are pretty
>> horrible, especially for the first two.
>>
>>  _/|_	 _______________________________________________________________
>> /o ) \/  Mike Taylor   <mike@miketaylor.org.uk>   www.miketaylor.org.uk
>> )_v__/\  "Further up and further in!" -- C. S. Lewis, "The Last Battle"
>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------
>Larry E. Dixson                    Internet:    ldix@loc.gov
>Network Development and MARC
>   Standards Office, LM639
>Library of Congress                Telephone: (202) 707-5807
>Washington, D.C.  20540-4402       Fax:       (202) 707-0115

*******************************************************
Liv A. Holm
associate professor
Oslo University college
faculty of journalism, library and information science
tel. +47-22-45-27-77
fax.:+47-22-45-26-05
*******************************************************
Received on Thursday, 20 March 2003 03:51:21 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 29 October 2009 06:12:23 GMT