I think we owe it to future generations to make sure that they don't
have to know MARC. It's beginning to feel like one of those really bad
horror films where the dead keep getting up and walking. I'm up for
driving a stake through its still-beating heart.
Imagine, just imagine, a world where you don't have to have memorized
documents written 50 years before in order to process your data. (cue
music, fade out)
On 11/7/12 3:36 AM, Owen Stephens wrote:
> Thanks Karen - probably should have known that! That's the nice thing about MARC - always some new thing to cope with :)
> Owen Stephens
> Owen Stephens Consulting
> Web: http://www.ostephens.com
> Email: [log in to unmask]
> Telephone: 0121 288 6936
> On 6 Nov 2012, at 19:37, Karen Coyle <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> The "9"s are available in all indicator positions for local use as defined in the MARC record (not MARC21) spec.  So what is in the MARC21 spec under a particular tag is the "non-local" values. I suspect that most systems just ignore any '9's they encounter unless those are defined as part of local system processing.
>>  http://www.loc.gov/marc/specifications/specrecstruc.html
>> On 11/6/12 10:20 AM, Owen Stephens wrote:
>>> According to the MARC spec, 035 doesn't support '9' as a valid indicator. My very uneducated guess would be the invalid indicator is causing the underlying system not to index it?
>>> Owen Stephens
>>> Owen Stephens Consulting
>>> Web: http://www.ostephens.com
>>> Email: [log in to unmask]
>>> Telephone: 0121 288 6936
>>> On 6 Nov 2012, at 17:43, Alevtina Verbovetskaya <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>> Let's say I've defined these indexes in pqf.properties on the SRU server:
>>>> index.marc.020 = 1=7 # ISBN
>>>> index.marc.035:1 = 1=1211 # OCLC/utility number where first indicator is non-blank
>>>> index.marc.100:1 = 1=1 # author where first indicator is non-blank
>>>> I can use the ISBN index to search for records, e.g.:
>>>> I can also use the author index to search for records, e.g.:
>>>> So why can't I search for records by utility number (035) with a non-blank first indicator?
>>>> If you're playing along, you'll notice that these all point to the same record. However, when I try to search for it with &query=marc.035:1="<util_num>", I get no results. I thought maybe this was because there's already another 035 field (with blank indicators) that's an OCLC number so I temporarily removed it... but that didn't solve the issue.
>>>> Anyone have any experience with this? I need to be able to search by 0359# and I can't figure out what I'm doing wrong. I would greatly appreciate some assistance!
>>>> Thank you,
>>>> Alevtina (Allie) Verbovetskaya
>>>> Web and Mobile Systems Librarian (Substitute)
>>>> Office of Library Services
>>>> City University of New York
>>>> 555 W 57th St, 13th fl.
>>>> New York, NY 10019
>>>> T: 646-313-8158
>>>> F: 646-216-7064
>>>> [log in to unmask]
>> Karen Coyle
>> [log in to unmask] http://kcoyle.net
>> ph: 1-510-540-7596
>> m: 1-510-435-8234
>> skype: kcoylenet
[log in to unmask] http://kcoyle.net