🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <MARVIT.90Oct2103912@hplpm.hpl.hp.com> marvit@hplpm.hpl.hp.com (Peter Marvit) writes:
>[[ Re: standard bibliographic formats ]]
>
>There is at least one de facto standard which libraries use for their
>on-loine card catalogs - MARC.  Of course the acronym's expansion eacapes
>me.
 
Machine Readable Catalogue. By the way, there is LC MARC, CANMARC, UNIMARC,
INTEMARC, etc.

>Could MARC be a superset of an ANSI bibliographical standard.  For that
>matter, why not use MARC or a slight improvement thereon?
 
You've got to be kidding. People of been working on this problem for over
20 years (more like 2000 or better, actually). Every librarian, whereever,
has confronted this problem. One might take a quite look at the 11th
Edition of the Britannica under bibliography to get an idea of what is
being toyed with here. Basically, bibliography and the description of
a bibliographic item can not be easily reduced to the Chicago Style
Manual, or to Turabian. At best the guidelines give by these two items
only suffice to produce "handlists." -:) 
-- 
Wain Dobson, Vancouver, B.C.
	...!{uunet,ubc-cs}!van-bc!seac!wain