On 10/16/13 12:33 PM, Kyle Banerjee wrote:
> BTW, I don't think 240 is a good substitute as the content is very
> different than in the regular title. That's where you'll find music, laws,
> selections, translations and it's totally littered with subfields. The 70.1
> figure from the stripped 245 is probably closer to the mark

Yes, you are right, especially for the particular purpose I am looking 
at. Thanks.

>
> IMO, what you stand to gain in functionality, maintenance, and analysis is
> much more interesting than potential space gains/losses.

Yes, obviously. But there exists an apology for FRBR that says that it 
will save cataloger time and will be more efficient in a database. I 
think it's worth taking a look at those assumptions. If there is a way 
to measure functionality, maintenance, etc. then we should measure it, 
for sure.

kc

>
> kyle
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 12:00 PM, Karen Coyle <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>> Thanks, Roy (and others!)
>>
>> It looks like the 245 is including the $c - dang! I should have been more
>> specific. I'm mainly interested in the title, which is $a $b -- I'm looking
>> at the gains and losses of bytes should one implement FRBR. As a hedge,
>> could I ask what've you got for the 240? that may be closer to reality.
>>
>> kc
>>
>>
>> On 10/16/13 10:57 AM, Roy Tennant wrote:
>>
>>> I don't even have to fire it up. That's a statistic that we generate
>>> quarterly (albeit via Hadoop). Here you go:
>>>
>>> 100 - 30.3
>>> 245 - 103.1
>>> 600 - 41
>>> 610 - 48.8
>>> 611 - 61.4
>>> 630 - 40.8
>>> 648 - 23.8
>>> 650 - 35.1
>>> 651 - 39.6
>>> 653 - 33.3
>>> 654 - 38.1
>>> 655 - 22.5
>>> 656 - 30.6
>>> 657 - 27.4
>>> 658 - 30.7
>>> 662 - 41.7
>>>
>>> Roy
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 10:38 AM, Sean Hannan <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>
>>>   That sounds like a request for Roy to fire up the ole OCLC Hadoop.
>>>> -Sean
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 10/16/13 1:06 PM, "Karen Coyle" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>   Anybody have data for the average length of specific MARC fields in some
>>>>> reasonably representative database? I mainly need 100, 245, 6xx.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> kc
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Karen Coyle
>>>>> [log in to unmask] http://kcoyle.net
>>>>> m: 1-510-435-8234
>>>>> skype: kcoylenet
>>>>>
>> --
>> Karen Coyle
>> [log in to unmask] http://kcoyle.net
>> m: 1-510-435-8234
>> skype: kcoylenet
>>

-- 
Karen Coyle
[log in to unmask] http://kcoyle.net
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet