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