X-Vmsmail-To: SMTP%"ROOTS-L@VM1.NODAK.EDU"
Newsgroups: soc.roots
Date:         Wed, 11 Nov 1992 17:18:42 -0600
Reply-To:     MELODIE SANDERS <MES@VAX2.UTULSA.EDU>
From:         MELODIE SANDERS <MES@VAX2.UTULSA.EDU>
Subject:      Re: MARC format records for genealogy
Comments: To: ROOTS-L@VM1.NODAK.EDU

Since I suspect that I'm not the only one who missed what Tammy wanted,
I thought I'd send my reply to her message to me to the discussion group...

Melodie

*************************************************************************

Tammy,

Can I apologize for taking so long to respond? Two other librarians and
myself were mandated to design and give a workshop on keyword searching for
the staff. LIAS, our online catalog, picked up that new feature a week ago
Monday.  We have had less than two weeks to get ready and will give the
workshop next Tuesday in two sessions.

> I think, Melody, that you misunderstood me.  I am trying to develope a
> MARC-like format for genealogical data.  In other words tagged fields
> in which data is placed.  Any software that understands the standard
> could then import the data easily.   An example might be to place paternal
> father in the 100 field.  Paternal Stepfather in 110 field.  Maternal
> mother in a 120 field. etc. etc. etc.

Yes, I think I have. When referring to the MARC format, my frame of
context is the standard which Library of Congress has developed. It
defines each field for the type of *data* which it should contain. In
re-reading your postings and Tom Lincoln's it has occurred to me that
I completely overlooked that MARC is also a computer structure which
can be manipulated. And the computer structure which, the LC standard
hangs on. If I am understanding you correctly (I hope!), what you are
wanting is to take that structure and create your own set of definitions
of what that structure should contain...

If this is the case, then MARC would work VERY nicely. Yet, if you
were planning to try to retain the LC definitions for each field, etc.
then what I said before (that it would be a nightmare to work without
training and documentation) would be true.

> I want to design a tagged field format for storage data and its source.
> To do this we would have to have a citation format or a place to put a
> number which would refer you to a citation record in a citation database.
> For example, A citation record for the 1920 California Soundex might be
> record number 1234 in the citation database.  Now child 345 might have
> been discoverd via record 1234.  In which case the documentation field for
> 345 (say 346) would have number 1234 telling the software where to look.
> The software could display this information in the manner it was designed
> to do by plugging in the information found in the various tagged fields.
>
> In other words....MARC-like....like USMARC does for bibliographic records.
> It doesn't matter whether you use Notis, Geac, or any other catalog type
> software, they all understand USMARC.  Genealogy software could be altered
> to understand "GeneMARC" or whatever.

Yes, by "throwing out" the standard definitions and using a catalog type
software (database manager) *will* work.  Also, the genealogy software
could translate the format you created to a GENCOM format, which would
solve the portablity problem.

You have a VERY workable idea.  As someone you has only programmed in
BASIC (and not since 1985 when I got PAF), I can't say how much would
be involved.  I played with a very similar idea in BASIC trying to
come up with a computer program for my genealogy. In that primitive
and limited framework, using field tags and assigning my own definitions
worked very nicely. (I found PAF before I got very far and I abandoned
the effort ...)

> By the way, thank you for forwarding that info.  I appreciate it.

If you should want more information on MARC (the LC standard), I will
be happy to answer any questions. For MARC (the computer structure) I
suspect some of the computer programmers on ROOTS-L can help you.


Melodie                 Internet: MES@VAX2.UTULSA.EDU