CMARC

臺灣大學圖書館是以中西文資料採用不同機讀編目格式的編目作業方式，近年來，面對編目人力縮減的壓力、透過OCLC WorldCat 增進書目國際化的需求，以及國際間轉換MARC21 的趨勢潮流，促使本館積極思考中西文資料統一採用MARC21 為機讀編目格式的可行性及效益。本研究以文獻分析及問卷調查方法分別瞭解國內外使用機讀編目格式的趨勢及轉換經驗；並透過本館2008 年至2010年5月間所入藏出版品的抄錄編目比率、編目作業以及書目上傳等工作流程的實際測試及分析，評估採用單一MARC21 格式對本館編目作業的工作效益以及書目服務品質的影響。評估結果發現MARC21 格式不論對本館內部的組織人力運用、工作績效，或是外部的編目發展趨勢以及國際接軌目標，都相較CMARC 格式有更直接且深遠的效益。本研究結果與建議將作為臺大圖書館擇用或轉換機讀編目格式之政策參考。

The National Taiwan University Library has been using different MARC formats, CMARC for Chinese/Japanese/Korean and MARC21 for western materials. Recently, to decrease human resources in cataloging, data exchange via OCLC WorldCat and the international tendency towards MARC21, we started to consider and evaluate the problems and benefits of transferring MARC21 as a single MARC format by utilizing content analysis within foreign experience of transferring to MARC21, questionnaire survey of university libraries in Taiwan and Statistics / experimental research of NTU library’s collections and workflow of cataloging. The research shows the assessment of MARC21, which displays on internal impact on human resources utilization, performance and external benefits on long-term development, communication with international, and is better than CMARC. The conclusion and suggestions will serve as a reference and guidelines for choosing or transferring the MARC format of the NTU library in the future.

機讀編目格式（Machine-Readable Cataloging，簡稱MARC）是圖書館長久以來用於組織書目資訊的必備工具。國內圖書館普遍採用中國機讀編目格式（CMARC）來處理中文資料，然而我們對於CMARC欄位的實際使用情形卻沒有足夠的了解。本文以Moen與Benardino所進行的MARC研究為基礎，由臺大圖書館之圖書類型書目資料檔取樣，進行CMARC欄位使用情形之分析研究。研究結果發現，本樣本的1,256筆CMARC書目資料中，有64%的分欄未被使用，而且有超過80%的使用集中在7%的分欄。根據研究結果，作者提出一些供CMARC修訂單位、各圖書館編目單位以及編目館員參考的建議。

The Machine-Readable Cataloging (MARC) format is an essential tool for libraries to store and manipulate bibliographic information. In Taiwan, many libraries use CMARC as a major means to process bibliographic data. Still, we do not have enough understanding about the actual utilization of content designation in CMARC. Based on the research of Moen and Benardino, this study intends to examine the utilization of the fields and subfields of CMARC. A sample of 1,256 records was extracted from the bibliographic database of the National Taiwan University Library. The results show that 64% of all subfields designed for book materials were never used, and 7% of subfields account for more than 80% of the utilization of content designation.