 |
 |
I'm not sure what you mean by "complete" holdings? The library holds the entire run of the journal from the first issue printed to the last/current? Or just holdings that dont' include "missing" statements? Perhaps other institutions have more easily parseable holdings data (or even holdings data stored in structured form in the ILS) than mine. For mine, even holdings that don't include "missing" are not feasibly reliably parseable, I've tried. Jonathan Kyle Banerjee wrote: >> But if you think it's easy, please, give it a try and get back to us. :) >> Maybe your library's data is cleaner than mine. >> >> >> > I don't think it's easy, but I think detecting *complete* holdings is a big > part of the picture and that can be done fairly well. > > Cleanliness of data will vary from one institution to another, and quite a > bit of it will be parsible. Even if you only can't even get half, you're > still way ahead of where you'd otherwise be. > > > >> I think it's kind of a crime that our ILS (and many other ILSs) doesn't >> provide a way for holdings to be efficiency entered (or guessed from >> prediction patterns etc) AND converted to an internal structured format that >> actually contains the semantic info we want. >> > > > There's too much variation in what people want to do. Even going with > manual MFHD, it's still pretty easy to generate stuff that's pretty hard to > parse > > kyle > >