7.0019 Rs: Database Formats (2/55)
Elaine Brennan (EDITORS@BROWNVM.BITNET)
Fri, 21 May 1993 11:13:24 EDT
Humanist Discussion Group, Vol. 7, No. 0019. Friday, 21 May 1993.
(1) Date: Tue, 18 May 93 11:49:31 EDT (38 lines)
From: Peter Graham 908-932-5908 Rutgers Univ. Libs.
Subject: Re: 7.0015 Database Formats
(2) Date: Tue, 18 May 93 11:15:43 PDT (17 lines)
From: cbf@athena.berkeley.edu (Charles Faulhaber)
Subject: Re: 7.0015 Database Formats
(1) --------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 18 May 93 11:49:31 EDT
From: Peter Graham 908-932-5908 Rutgers Univ. Libs.
Subject: Re: 7.0015 Database Formats (1/57)
From: Peter Graham, Rutgers University Libraries
Brett Charbeneau has asked about formats for descriptive bibliography in the
context of using DBase III and/or MARC. Two brief comments:
1) If records are intended to be developed to be shared among libraries then
the MARC format should be used if at all possible. A great deal of social
investment has gone into making this format usable and sharable, and that
shouldn't be thrown away in the interest of a local economy. Using one of
the national utilities to do the work seems like the direction to go.
2) Failing that as a possibility, then the MARC format should be used as a
guide to developing structures in another data base version. The goal should
be to make machine conversion feasible at a later date. Implications are
therefore that the MARC data elements that are essential (see: quality
requirements for the favored bib. utility) should be provided as distinct
data elements in the data base (DBase, e.g.) so that they could be mapped
into the MARC format by a machine conversion. This might include seemingly
redundant or laborious field entries e.g. for tags, fixed fields, and the
like.
Information that is considered useful but not required by MARC formats
directly should be thought about in terms of the MARC note structures.
========
The MARC (Machine Readable Cataloging) communications format is well designed
and the exchange medium of choice, and in this country the LC MARC version is
what is desirable to follow. I hope this helps.
--pg
Peter S. Graham Rutgers University Libraries (908) 932-5908
169 College Avenue New Brunswick, N. J. 08903 Fax: (908) 932-5888
(2) --------------------------------------------------------------27----
Date: Tue, 18 May 93 11:15:43 PDT
From: cbf@athena.berkeley.edu (Charles Faulhaber)
Subject: Re: 7.0015 Database Formats (1/57)
Anybody concerend seriously with bibliographical
data has to know about MARC, and it is obviously
useful to be able to upload and data from any
program you use into MARC format and conversely
receive it.
There are PC-based MARC programs, and I suspect that
some of them have the capability of importing
DBASE files. The librarians would be better qualified
to talk about the specifics.
Charles Faulhaber
UC Berkeley