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:

Monospaced Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

CODE4LIB Home

CODE4LIB Home

CODE4LIB  July 2016

CODE4LIB July 2016

Subject:

Re: date fields

From:

Jonathan Rochkind <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Code for Libraries <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Tue, 12 Jul 2016 10:31:33 -0400

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (65 lines)

> but since there is really no standard field for such a value, anything I
choose is all but arbitrary. I’ll use some 9xx field, just to make things
easy. I can always (and easily) change it later.

More like there are SEVERAL standard fields for such a value.

You can certainly put it in one of the existing standard fields, you just
have to actually follow the (often byzantine legacy) rules for such entry.
For instance, the date you want may very well already be in the fixed field
008, and you could certainly add it if it weren't. But the rules and
practices for 008 are confusing -- in part, because the actual real world
universe of "what is the date of this thing" is itself complex in the real
world of actually cataloged things, including serials and series,
manuscripts, reprints and fascimiles, old things where we aren't sure of
the exact dates, etc. And in part just because the MARC standard is kind
of old and creaky, especially with regard to fixed fields like 008 being
designed to cram maximum amount of information in minimum bytes, beyond any
reasonable economy actually needed today.

I just learned about the 264 from Karen Miller's post (thanks Karen), I
dunno about that one, but it looks like it might be applicable too.

Standards, why have just one when you can have a dozen?

On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 10:12 AM, Eric Lease Morgan <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> On Jul 11, 2016, at 4:32 PM, Kyle Banerjee <[log in to unmask]>
> wrote:
>
> >>
> https://github.com/traject/traject/blob/e98fe35f504a2a519412cd28fdd97dc514b603c6/lib/traject/macros/marc21_semantics.rb#L299-L379
> >
> > Is the idea that this new field would be stored as MARC in the system
> (the
> > ILS?).
> >
> > If so, the 9xx solution already suggested is probably the way to go if
> the
> > 008 route suggested earlier won't work for you. Otherwise, you run a risk
> > that some form of record maintenance will blow out all your changes.
> >
> > The actual use case you have in mind makes a big difference in what paths
> > make sense, so more detail might be helpful.
>
>
> Thank you, one & all, for the input & feedback. After thinking about it
> for a while, I believe I will save my normalized dates in a local (9xx)
> field of some sort.
>
> My use case? As a part of the "Catholic Portal", I aggregate many
> different types of metadata and essentially create a union catalog of rare
> and infrequently held materials of a Catholic nature. [1] In an effort to
> measure “rarity” I've counted and tabulated the frequency of a given title
> in WorldCat. I now want to measure the age of the materials in the
> collection. To do that I need to normalize dates and evaluate them. Ideally
> I would save the normalized dates back in MARC and give the MARC back to
> Portal members libraries, but since there is really no standard field for
> such a value, anything I choose is all but arbitrary. I’ll use some 9xx
> field, just to make things easy. I can always (and easily) change it later.
>
> [1] "Catholic Portal” - http://www.catholicresearch.net
>
> —
> Eric Lease Morgan
>

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

August 2022
July 2022
June 2022
May 2022
April 2022
March 2022
February 2022
January 2022
December 2021
November 2021
October 2021
September 2021
August 2021
July 2021
June 2021
May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
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