After MARC – what then?
| Date | 01 March 2004 |
| Published date | 01 March 2004 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/07378830410524486 |
| Pages | 40-51 |
| Author | Leif Andresen |
| Subject Matter | Information & knowledge management,Library & information science |
After MARC ± what
then?
Leif Andresen
The history of the MARC standard
The MARC format was developed to exchange
bibliographic registrations. For the first few
years the format was used to produce catalogue
cards. The MARC format was designed and
implemented many years before online
catalogues and electronic publishing of
bibliographic records were introduced.
ISO 2709 (ISO, 1996) provides the
framework for MARC, and this is visible in the
MARC formats' use of three-character field
codes, the use of indicators, and the use of
sub-field codes. This kind of database structure
is suitable for a sequential dataflow (which is
exactly for what ISO 2709 was developed) in
order to handle data on magnetic tapes. ISO
2709 and MARC formats can be used for data
types other than bibliographic data. The format
has not found much support in non-library
environments, but there are many examples of
library software being applied in contexts other
than libraries. From the author's previous
employment as a consultant for suppliers of
library systems, mention can be made of
alternative use of library software as a tool for
case management and registration of
equipment, building materials, and hardware
components in a telecommunications company.
There are (at least) three current
schools/divisions of the MARC formats:
(1) USMARC ± which became MARC21;
(2) BNBMARC ± which became UKMARC;
and
(3) UNIMARC.
There are certain similarities between
UKMARC and USMARC, while the Danish
format danMARC2 (KatalogdataraÊdet, 1998)
has been developed from the original
BNBMARC. Some years ago it was discussed
whether IMARC should replace USMARC,
CANMARC and UKMARC but, due to
differences in the three existing formats,
including the question of multi-volume works
and USMARC's use of ISBD-characters as part
of the record, IMARC did not replace any of
the other formats.
The author
Leif Andresen is Library Advisory Officer, Danish National
Library Authority, Copenhagen and Chair of the Danish
Standards Technical Committee for Information and
Documentation, Denmark.
Keywords
Databases, Online cataloguing, Libraries, Denmark
Abstract
The article discusses the future of the MARC formats and
outlines how future cataloguing practice and bibliographic
records might look. Background and basic functionality of the
MARC formats are outlined, and it is pointed out that MARC
is manifest in several different formats. This is illustrated
through a comparison between the MARC21 format and the
Danish MARC format ``danMARC2''.It is argued that present
cataloguing codes and MARC formats are based primarily on
the Paris principles and that ``functional requirements for
bibliographic records'' (FRBR) would serve as a more solid
and user-oriented platform for future development of
cataloguing codes and formats. Furthermore, it is argued that
MARC is a library-specific format, which results in neither
exchange with library external sectors nor inclusion of other
texts being facilitated. XML could serve as the technical
platform for a model for future registrations, consisting of
some core data and different supplements of data necessary
for different sectors and purposes.
Electronic access
The Emerald Research Register for this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/researchregister
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is
available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0737-8831.htm
Received 1 September 2003
Revised 9 October 2003
Accepted 7 November 2003
40
Library Hi Tech
Volume 22 .Number 1 .2004 .pp. 40-51
#Emerald Group Publishing Limited .ISSN 0737-8831
DOI 10.1108/07378830410524486
To continue reading
Request your trial