LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.5

Help for CODE4LIB Archives


CODE4LIB Archives

CODE4LIB Archives


CODE4LIB@LISTS.CLIR.ORG


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

CODE4LIB Home

CODE4LIB Home

CODE4LIB  January 2012

CODE4LIB January 2012

Subject:

Re: Metadata war stories...

From:

Stephen Meyer <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Code for Libraries <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Sat, 28 Jan 2012 10:37:25 -0600

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (126 lines)

War is hell, right? Lately we have been dealing with a particular 
combination of two circles of the metadata Inferno: the first (limbo) 
and sixth (heresy):

The limbo I'll define as a poorly designed metadata spec: the MARC 
holdings standard. The poor design in question is the ambiguity of 
enumeration/chronology subfield assignment, specifically this rule:

   When only chronology is used on an item (that is, the item
   carries no enumeration), the chronology is contained in the
   relevant enumeration subfield ($a-$h) instead of the chronology
   subfields ($i-$m).
   http://www.loc.gov/marc/holdings/hd863865.html

This means that as a programmer trying to parse enumeration and 
chronology data from our holdings data *that uses a standard* I cannot 
reliably know that a subfield which has been defined as containing 
"First level of enumeration" will in fact contain enumeration rather 
than chronology. What's a programmer to do? Limbo, limbo.

Others in this thread have already described the common heresy involved 
in MARC cataloging: embedding data in a record intended for a single 
institution, or worse, a specific OPAC.

Due to the ambiguity in the spec and the desire to just make it look the 
way I want it to look in my OPAC, the temptation is simply too great. In 
the end, we have data that couldn't possibly meet the standard as it is 
described and means that we spend more time than we expected parsing it 
in the next system.

In our case we work through these issues with an army of code tests. Our 
catalogers and reference staff find broken examples of MARC holdings 
data parsing in our newest discovery system, we gather the real-world 
MARC records as a test data set and then we write a bunch of Rspec tests 
so we don't undo previous bug fixes as we deal with the current ones. 
The challenge is coming up with a fast and responsive mechanism/process 
for adding a record to the test set once identified.

-Steve

Bess Sadler wrote, On 1/27/12 8:26 PM:
> I remember the "required field" operation of... aught six? aught seven? It all runs together at my age. Turns out, for years people had been making shell catalog records for items in the collection that needed to be checked out but hadn't yet been barcoded. Some percentage of these people opted not to record any information about the item other than the barcode it left the building under, presumably because they were "in a hurry". If there was such a thing as a metadata crime, that'd be it.
>
> We were young and naive, we thought "why not just index all our catalog records into solr?" Little did we know what unholy abominations we would uncover. Out of nowhere, we were surrounded by zombie marc records, horrible half-created things, never meant to roam the earth or even to exist in a sane mind. They could tell us nothing about who they were, what book they had once tried to describe, they could only stare blankly and repeat in mangled agony "required field!" "required field!" "required field!" over and over…
>
> It took us weeks to put them all out of their misery.
>
> This is the first time I've ever spoken of this publicly. The support group is helping with the nightmares, but sometimes still, I wake in a cold sweat, wondering… did we really find them all?????
>
>
> On Jan 27, 2012, at 4:28 PM, Ethan Gruber wrote:
>
>> EDIT ME!!!!
>>
>> http://ead.lib.virginia.edu/vivaxtf/view?docId=uva-sc/viu00888.xml;query=;brand=default#adminlink
>>
>> On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 6:26 PM, Roy Tennant<[log in to unmask]>  wrote:
>>
>>> Oh, I should have also mentioned that some of the worst problems occur
>>> when people treat their metadata like it will never leave their
>>> institution. When that happens you get all kinds of crazy cruft in a
>>> record. For example, just off the top of my head:
>>>
>>> * Embedded HTML markup (one of my favorites is an<img>  tag)
>>> * URLs to remote resources that are hard-coded to go through a
>>> particular institution's proxy
>>> * Notes that only have meaning for that institution
>>> * Text that is meant to display to the end-user but may only do so in
>>> certain systems; e.g., "Click here" in a particular subfield.
>>>
>>> Sigh...
>>> Roy
>>>
>>> On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 4:17 PM, Roy Tennant<[log in to unmask]>  wrote:
>>>> Thanks a lot for the kind shout-out Leslie. I have been pondering what
>>>> I might propose to discuss at this event, since there is certainly
>>>> plenty of fodder. Recently we (OCLC Research) did an investigation of
>>>> 856 fields in WorldCat (some 40 million of them) and that might prove
>>>> interesting. By the time ALA rolls around there may something else
>>>> entirely I could talk about.
>>>>
>>>> That's one of the wonderful things about having 250 million MARC
>>>> records sitting out on a 32-node cluster. There are any number of
>>>> potentially interesting investigations one could do.
>>>> Roy
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 2:10 PM, Johnston, Leslie<[log in to unmask]>
>>> wrote:
>>>>> Roy's fabulous "Bitter Harvest" paper:
>>> http://roytennant.com/bitter_harvest.html
>>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: Code for Libraries [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf
>>> Of Walter Lewis
>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2012 1:38 PM
>>>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>>>> Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] Metadata war stories...
>>>>>
>>>>> On 2012-01-25, at 10:06 AM, Becky Yoose wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> - Dirty data issues when switching discovery layers or using
>>>>>> legacy/vendor metadata (ex. HathiTrust)
>>>>>
>>>>> I have a sharp recollection of a slide in a presentation Roy Tennant
>>> offered up at Access  (at Halifax, maybe), where he offered up a range of
>>> dates extracted from an array of OAI harvested records.  The good, the bad,
>>> the incomprehensible, the useless-without-context (01/02/03 anyone?) and on
>>> and on.  In my years of migrating data, I've seen most of those variants.
>>> (except ones *intended* to be BCE).
>>>>>
>>>>> Then there are the fielded data sets without authority control.  My
>>> favourite example comes from staff who nominally worked for me, so I'm not
>>> telling tales out of school.  The classic Dynix product had a Newspaper
>>> index module that we used before migrating it (PICK migrations; such a
>>> joy).  One title had twenty variations on "Georgetown Independent" (I wish
>>> I was kidding) and the dates ranged from the early ninth century until
>>> nearly the 3rd millenium. (apparently there hasn't been much change in
>>> local council over the centuries).
>>>>>
>>>>> I've come to the point where I hand-walk the spatial metadata to links
>>> with to geonames.org for the linked open data. Never had to do it for a
>>> set with more than 40,000 entries though.  The good news is that it isn't
>>> hard to establish a valid additional entry when one is required.
>>>>>
>>>>> Walter
>>>

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTS.CLIR.ORG

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager