[112] in ad-lib
Order of subfields
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Sarah Mitchell)
Thu Mar 9 09:19:07 1995
To: m.ridgeway@geac.com
Cc: ad-cat@MIT.EDU
Date: Thu, 09 Mar 1995 09:18:42 EST
From: Sarah Mitchell <smitchel@MIT.EDU>
This issue of the order of the subfields keeps coming up.
It still isn't clear to me where we need to specify the order. Irma
indicates its important for B.Index, but, then, how does BTSD factor
in? Do we have to specify order in both?
I gather that at no point in the processing of catalog records that
Geac retains the order of the subfields that the cataloger originally
keyed in. Is that true?
--Sarah
------- Forwarded Message
Date: Wed, 8 Mar 1995 15:04:17 +0700
From: "Irma S. Holtkamp" <isholtkamp@lanl.gov>
Sender: ADVANC-L - Users of the Geac ADVANCE Library System
<ADVANC-L%IDBSU.BITNET@mitvma.mit.edu>
To: Multiple recipients of list ADVANC-L <ADVANC-L%IDBSU.BITNET@mitvma.mit
.edu>
Subject: Re: 246 field with subfield "i"
On Mar.8, 1995, Floyd Ingram wrote:
>Hello ADVANCE catalogers,
>
>I just realized that searching by a cover title of an item will not list
>the title on the browse list for MARC records that have subfield "i"
>before subfield "a" in a 246 field. Example: 246 1B $i Cover title: $a
>Encyclopedic dictionary of language & languages. The strange thing is
>that subfield "i" is indexed here. Otherwords, I can search and retrieve
>titles by "cover title" and get all the titles beginning with "Cover
>title." I like to see subfield "i" ignored during the search. Of
>course, I went and changed it by entering a second indicator such as "8"
>for cover title and deleted subfield "i." There are cases where subfield
>"i" can be used. How do we get around this? Has anyone else had this
>problem and what was the solution?
>
>******************************************************************
>Floyd Ingram
>Johnson C. Smith University Library
>Charlotte, NC 28216
>fingram@vnet.net
>(704) 378-1124 Office
You may want to check B.INDEX. Sounds like the indexing on your system is
set to index the entire 246 tag instead of selected subfields. For some
tags, it may be useful to consider the order of subfields within a given
MARC tag that you want to index, as not specifying subfield order can
greatly affect the result.
We had a problem with linking fields (76X-78X) where we'd initially not
specified down to the subfield level or the order of the subfields and we
ended up with some pretty weird entries (i.e., subfield g before subfield t
in 773 for example).
***********************************************
Irma S. Holtkamp, Special Projects Librarian
Los Alamos National Laboratory Research Library
P.O. Box 1663, MS-P364
Los Alamos, NM 87545
Phone: (505) 667-4446
FAX: (505) 665-0611
Email: isholtkamp@lanl.gov
------- End of Forwarded Message
