2 Comments on “What do MARC descriptions of archival materials really look like?”

  1. I’m surprised that so few records describe whole collections and that only a third of records link to digital content, although perhaps I shouldn’t be. And it was fun (and a little nerve-wracking) to go back and look at collections’ catalog records. I haven’t listened to the recording yet, but I’d love to hear more about the silos that affect cataloging.

    As far as what else I’d want to know: what limits what folks put into records? Is it possible that it’s a software problem or are there other limitations? For example, why do less than half of DACS-described mixed materials collections include dates in the 245? That seems like an easy win. You probably have that question too, though, and it would be hard to get at.

  2. One suggestion would be to look at the way in which MARC records conform to the ICA standards, ISAD(G) in particular, rather than a national std like DACS.

Comments are closed.