Comments on: Better Online Citations – Details Part 3 (MARC) http://www.thinkgenealogy.com/2009/06/20/better-online-citations-marc/ genealogy, software, ideas, and innovation Wed, 11 Jan 2012 15:38:55 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Steven M. Law http://www.thinkgenealogy.com/2009/06/20/better-online-citations-marc/comment-page-1/#comment-1146 Steven M. Law Mon, 22 Jun 2009 16:40:38 +0000 http://www.thinkgenealogy.com/?p=689#comment-1146 MARC can include page (and volume, etc.) references. These would often (but not always) be what are called "analytic" catalog records. For example instead of simply having a MARC record for "The Source: A Guidebook to American Genealogy" you could have analytic entries for one or more chapters from the Source. So a MARC record for chapter 11, "Military Records" from "The Source" would have a MARC 773 tag (Host Item Entry) with subfields for the editors of "The Source", the title, publication information, and the pages on which the specific chapter appeared. I know that this has sometimes been used in cataloging manuscripts. It appears to just be 2 levels, so it would be somewhat limited in its usefulness with any genealogical sources requiring more levels of hierarchy. MARC can include page (and volume, etc.) references. These would often (but not always) be what are called “analytic” catalog records. For example instead of simply having a MARC record for “The Source: A Guidebook to American Genealogy” you could have analytic entries for one or more chapters from the Source. So a MARC record for chapter 11, “Military Records” from “The Source” would have a MARC 773 tag (Host Item Entry) with subfields for the editors of “The Source”, the title, publication information, and the pages on which the specific chapter appeared. I know that this has sometimes been used in cataloging manuscripts. It appears to just be 2 levels, so it would be somewhat limited in its usefulness with any genealogical sources requiring more levels of hierarchy.

]]> By: Tamura Jones http://www.thinkgenealogy.com/2009/06/20/better-online-citations-marc/comment-page-1/#comment-1113 Tamura Jones Sat, 20 Jun 2009 13:41:14 +0000 http://www.thinkgenealogy.com/?p=689#comment-1113 Mark, MARC21 is merely the most widely accepted flavour of MARC in the USA. Some other, arguably more important flavours are UNIMARC and INTERMARC. Perhaps best that can be said about MARC-21 is that it is backward compatible. MARC-21 is rather complex, but I think you may enjoy a look at MARC-8, which is not a predecessor of but a part of MARC-21. I am guessing that substandard will look somewhat familiar to you. A brief look at Unicode support in MARC21 should convince you that this is a standard you use because you positively have to. Mark,

MARC21 is merely the most widely accepted flavour of MARC in the USA.
Some other, arguably more important flavours are UNIMARC and INTERMARC.

Perhaps best that can be said about MARC-21 is that it is backward compatible.
MARC-21 is rather complex, but I think you may enjoy a look at MARC-8, which is not a predecessor of but a part of MARC-21. I am guessing that substandard will look somewhat familiar to you. A brief look at Unicode support in MARC21 should convince you that this is a standard you use because you positively have to.

]]>