Bibliographic Formats: Ch. 4 response

In reading about bibliographic formats in chapter 4 of Chowdhury, I find it most confusing that for so long there has not been one common standard when it comes to exchanging information and records in a network of organizations.  It seems to me, from the readings, that many attempts at creating a standard format for these records have been attempted, but there are still issues that arise when information needs to be exchanged.  Even when the MARC format came about, the chapter states that while they adhere to the ISO 2709 record structure, USMARC, UKMARCm and other national MARC formats have some differences in terms of content designations.  Eventually, most formats were consolidated into MARC 21, which uses a more widely accepted structure.  I think from reading this chapter, I am much more impressed with the amount of decision that goes into creating a common language of tags and fields (just skimming through the MARC 21 tags and fields is mind boggling), although it still seems as though more study can be put forth into creating a true common standard.


2 thoughts on “Bibliographic Formats: Ch. 4 response

  1. I completely agree about the deciphering of the MARC 21 tags. I tried to compare it to someone looking at HTML tags. One person seeing

      Some Text

    knows that an ordered list is being created – but to the uninitiated it holds no tangible meaning. That’s how I felt when looking at a MARC Display at the NYPL – without having our book open to the corrsponding explanation of tags.

    Very enjoyable post.


Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s