 |
 |
There's some super useful data in the MARC fixed fields too -- more useful than the semi-transcribed values in 260c, although it's also a pain to access/transform to something reasonably machine actionable. Here's the code from traject that tries to get a reasonable date out of marc fixed fields, falling back to 260c if it needs to. https://github.com/traject/traject/blob/e98fe35f504a2a519412cd28fdd97dc514b603c6/lib/traject/macros/marc21_semantics.rb#L299-L379 There are already quite a few places in MARC for dates. It's just they're all weird. You're making up yet a new kind of date to your own local meaning and specs. I doubt there's an existing MARC field you can put it in where it won't just add to the confusion. (obligatory reference to https://xkcd.com/927/). I'd just put it in a 9xx or xx9 field of your choosing, they are reserved for local use. On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 3:19 PM, Joy Nelson <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > Hi Eric- > Are you planning on storing the 'normalized' dates for ever in the MARC? > i.e. leave the c1900 in the 260$c and have 1900 in another place? > > I think what you do depends on your ILS and tools. My first reaction would > be to stash the date in an unused subfield in the 260. If your system > allows you to add 'non standard' subfields, you could use 260$z to stash > it. > > But, then I start to think that might rankle some catalogers to have 'non > standard' date data in the 260 (or 264). I would probably then look at > using one of the local use tags. 901-907, 910, or 945-949. You could be > the date in $a and even a brief description in a second subfield. > 901$a1900$bnormalized date for project XYZ -initials/date > > -Joy > > On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 12:51 PM, Eric Lease Morgan <[log in to unmask]> > wrote: > > > I’m looking for date fields. > > > > Or more specifically, I have been given a pile o’ MARC records, and I > will > > be extracting for analysis the values of dates from MARC 260$c. From the > > resulting set of values — which will include all sorts of string values > > ([1900], c1900, 190?, 19—, 1900, etc.) — I plan to normalize things to > > integers like 1900. I then want to save/store these normalized values > back > > to my local set of MARC records. I will then re-read the data to create > > things like timelines, to answer questions like “How old is old?”, or to > > “simply” look for trends in the data. > > > > What field would y’all suggest I use to store my normalized date content? > > > > — > > Eric Morgan > > > > > > -- > Joy Nelson > Director of Migrations > > ByWater Solutions <http://bywatersolutions.com> > Support and Consulting for Open Source Software > Office: Fort Worth, TX > Phone/Fax (888)900-8944 > What is Koha? <http://bywatersolutions.com/what-is-koha/> >