LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

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  October 2013

CODE4LIB October 2013

Subject:

Re: MARC field lengths

From:

Bill Dueber <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Code for Libraries <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Wed, 16 Oct 2013 20:43:20 -0400

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (188 lines)

My guess is that traversing the WEM structure for display of a single
record (e.g., in a librarian's ILS client or what not) will not be a
problem at all, because the volume is so low.  In terms of the OPAC
interface itself, well, there are lots and lots of way to denormalize the
data (meaning "copy over and inline data whose canonical values are in
their own tables somewhere") for search and display purposes. Heck, lots of
us do this on a smaller and less complicated scale already, as we dump data
into Solr for our public catalogs.

This adds complexity to the system (determining what to denormalize,
determining when some underlying value has changed and knowing what other
elements need updating), but it's the sort of complexity that's been
well-studied and doesn't worry me too much.

I'm much, *much* more "nerd" than "librarian," and if there's one thing I
wish I could get across to people who swing the other way, it's that
getting the data model right is so very much harder than figuring out how
to process it. Make sure the individual elements are machine-intelligible,
and there are hoards of smart people (both within and outside of the
library world) who will figure out how efficiently(-enough) store and
retrieve it. And, for the love of god, have someone around who can at least
speak authoritatively about what sorts of things fall into the "hard" and
"easy-peasy" categories in terms of the technology, instead of making
assumptions.




On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 6:23 PM, Karen Coyle <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Yes, that's my take as well, but I think it's worth quantifying if
> possible. There is the usual trade-off between time and space -- and I'd be
> interested in hearing whether anyone here thinks that there is any concern
> about traversing the WEM structure for each search and display. Does it
> matter if every display of author in a Manifestation has to connect M-E-W?
> Or is that a concern, like space, that is no longer relevant?
>
> kc
>
>
>
> On 10/16/13 12:57 PM, Bill Dueber wrote:
>
>> If anyone out there is really making a case for FRBR based on whether or
>> not it saves a few characters in a database, well, she should give up the
>> library business and go make money off  her time machine . Maybe --
>> *maybe* --
>>
>> 15 years ago. But I have to say, I'm sitting on 10m records right now, and
>> would happily figure out how to deal with double or triple the space
>> requirements for added utility. Space is always a consideration, but it's
>> slipped down into about 15th place on my Giant List of Things to Worry
>> About.
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 3:49 PM, Karen Coyle <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>
>>  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
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
> --
> Karen Coyle
> [log in to unmask] http://kcoyle.net
> m: 1-510-435-8234
> skype: kcoylenet
>



-- 
Bill Dueber
Library Systems Programmer
University of Michigan Library

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

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