Quoting Tom Morris <tfmor...@gmail.com>:
> I thought the whole point of having fields in a database record was to > avoid having to do string parsing, with all its problems, to recover > your original data. Tom, you are right that the ideal is to have a separate element for each separate "bit" of data. The OL began with a simple bibliographic description for various reasons. Having worked in the library field where the data can be very complex but can only be input by persons with considerable training, it is interesting to attempt to marry that level of complexity with a data model that can be grasped immediately by enthusiastic volunteers with no specific training in the area. As such, the OL has gone back and merged some data that was once kept apart (e.g. non-sorting beginnings to titles, called "non-filing characters" in MARC), and has separated out data elements that were initially combined (e.g. tables of contents with numbering and pagination). This series issue is one worth considering for modification. A clever aspect of the OL's design is that changes can be made to the data elements mid-life, as it were, without disrupting the database itself. At this point, adding a series volume number to the series field would allow those elements to be input going forward, and some programming could be used to catch up earlier series entries that do have volume numbers. That process would not be perfect, of course, but ... imperfection is just a fact of life when you have many sources of data like the OL has. The saving grace is the wiki-nature, which allows changes to take place while all versions remain part of the record. kc > > If multiple fields are going to be munged together into a single > string, what are the escaping rules for delimiters contained in the > original strings? What are the parsing rules? > > Tom > >> >> kc >> >> >> >> Quoting Roger Loran Bailey <rogerbaile...@aol.com>: >> >>> Well, there are standards and there are common usages. Most of us know, for >>> example, what standard English is, but very few people actually talk that >>> way. Standards of library cataloging are a bit more obscure though. If we >>> have a professional librarian here I suppose we can get an answer to what >>> the standard is. As for common usage, though, the most common catalog >>> entries that I see place the number of the book in a series with >>> the name of >>> the series. In fact, examples of it being done differently do not come to >>> mind right now. That is why I suspect that to be the standard, but I cannot >>> be sure. The authorities who make up the standards can make up some pretty >>> obscure ones sometimes. As for myself, I would place the number with the >>> series title until someone who has the credentials says otherwise. >>> >>> >>> _ _ _ >>> >>> "Freedom is always and exclusively freedom for the one who thinks >>> differently." - Rosa Luxemburg >>> >>> >>> The Militant: >>> http://www.themilitant.com >>> Pathfinder Press: >>> http://www.pathfinderpress.com >>> Granma International: >>> http://www.granma.cu/ingles/index.html >>> ----- Original Message ----- >>> From: "Alan Millar" <amillar...@gmail.com> >>> To: "Open Library -- general discussion" <ol-discuss@archive.org> >>> Sent: Tuesday, October 12, 2010 4:11 PM >>> Subject: Re: [ol-discuss] Series titles: include individual ID or not? >>> >>> >>>> On Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 12:35 PM, Roger Loran Bailey >>>> <rogerbaile...@aol.com> wrote: >>>>> I think I would add the series number. There doesn't seem to be much >>>>> point >>>>> in identifying a book as being in a series if there is no indication of >>>>> which one in the series it is. >>>> >>>> Yes, certainly, we want the number identifying which one in the series it >>>> is. >>>> >>>> To expand or clarify, then, I guess my specific question is whether >>>> that should go in the series name field, or in another field such as >>>> the subtitle. >>>> >>>> I know data gets conflated when translated between different >>>> databases, but I don't know what is considered the standard or proper >>>> way of describing the series collective and individual data (if there >>>> is such a thing). >>>> >>>> Thanks for the feedback. >>>> >>>> - Alan >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Ol-discuss mailing list >>>> Ol-discuss@archive.org >>>> http://mail.archive.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ol-discuss >>>> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send email to >>>> ol-discuss-unsubscr...@archive.org >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Ol-discuss mailing list >>> Ol-discuss@archive.org >>> http://mail.archive.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ol-discuss >>> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send email to >>> ol-discuss-unsubscr...@archive.org >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Karen Coyle >> kco...@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net >> ph: 1-510-540-7596 >> m: 1-510-435-8234 >> skype: kcoylenet >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Ol-discuss mailing list >> Ol-discuss@archive.org >> http://mail.archive.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ol-discuss >> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send email to >> ol-discuss-unsubscr...@archive.org >> > _______________________________________________ > Ol-discuss mailing list > Ol-discuss@archive.org > http://mail.archive.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ol-discuss > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send email to > ol-discuss-unsubscr...@archive.org > -- Karen Coyle kco...@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net ph: 1-510-540-7596 m: 1-510-435-8234 skype: kcoylenet _______________________________________________ Ol-discuss mailing list Ol-discuss@archive.org http://mail.archive.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ol-discuss To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send email to ol-discuss-unsubscr...@archive.org
