[12643] in Public-Access_Computer_Systems_Forum
Re: ALA Mtg: Ref Srvc Digital Age: LC Next Steps
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Dan Robinson Indexing Services)
Thu Jan 7 20:06:19 1999
Date: Thu, 07 Jan 1999 17:04:34 -0500
From: Dan Robinson Indexing Services <drobinson@info.hwwilson.com>
In-Reply-To: <001f01be3971$3a953fe0$381eb3c7@metronet.lib.mi.us>
To: PACS-L@LISTSERV.UH.EDU
Reply-To: drobinson@hwwilson.com
----------------------------Original message----------------------------
According to LC, the MARC record *is* in compliance, since the
date fields concerned have no chance of conflict with earlier dates.
This brings up an interesting point about y2k. Is compliance the
ability of the program to interpret the date data and act
accordingly and correctly, or is compliance making all the dates four
characters so they look nice?
LC has the rationale of why they either changed date formats or did
not change date formats on their Website <http://lcweb.loc.gov>.
Dan Robinson
Indexing Services
H.W. Wilson Company
Bronx, NY
drobinson@hwwilson.com
On 6 Jan 99 at 13:50, Gerald M. Furi wrote:
> ----------------------------Original message----------------------------
> Good morning, all
>
> Perhaps a small addition to the Agenda: I have seen several mentions on
> different lists of what could be a somewhat more than pesky problem: ask LC
> and OCLC for a progress report on fixing the Y2K-non-compliance of the MARC
> record. ;)
>
> Cheers
>
> gmf
> Gerald Furi
> Assistant Director, Farmington Community Library
> Project Manager, Metro Net Library Consortium, Inc.
>
