Re: [CODE4LIB] ruby-marc: how to sort fields after append?
Since the fields property of a MARC::Record is a MARC::FieldMap, which is a
subclass of Array, I use the Array.sort_by! method:
record.fields.sort_by! {|f| f.tag}
On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 12:28 AM, Jason Stirnaman jstirna...@kumc.edu
wrote:
Ruby-marc sages,
What's the best way to re-sequence fields in a record after appending to
it? This seems to work ok, but feels wrong.
for record in reader
# Return a record with new field appended.
newrecord = add_control_number(record)
### Re-sort fields by tag and copy them to a new record. ###
sortedrecord = MARC::Record.new
sortedrecord.leader = newrecord.leader
newrecord.sort_by{|f| f.tag}.each {|tag| sortedrecord.append(tag)}
writer.write(sortedrecord)
end
Thanks,
Jason
Jason Stirnaman
Lead, Library Technology Services
University of Kansas Medical Center
jstirna...@kumc.edu
913-588-7319
[CODE4LIB] There's still time to register for THATCamp Philly 2014!
THATCamp Philly is back for its fourth annual unconference! Friday, September 19 at the Chemical Heritage Foundation in Old City, Philadelphia THATCamp, The Humanities And Technology Camp, is a free, open, interdisciplinary “unconference” where humanists and technologists meet to work together for the common good. The theme for this year's event is DH on a Dime and will focus on low-cost and creative approaches to Digital Humanities work. The one-day forum will feature both scheduled workshops and unconference sessions, dine arounds, swag, refreshments and good cheer! Workshops will include: Hands-on Mapmaking Tools by Sarah Cordivano of Azavea and GeoPhilly -- Reusing Existing Platforms and Projects by Stacey Mann of Night Kitchen Interactive -- Finding Data by Nabil Kashyap of Swarthmore College -- Humanities Outreach Integrating Livestreamed Video and Social Media by Jeff Guin of Chemical Heritage Foundation -- Video Production and Publishing Strategies for Small Institutions on a Budget by Nicole Scalessa of the Library Company of Philadelphia. More information on workshops can be found here: http://2014.thatcampphilly.org/workshops/ Our late afternoon reception will take place at the nearby historic Physick House and will be sponsored by the Library Company of Philadelphia, the Philadelphia Society for the Preservation of Landmarks, and Rochester Institute of Technology’s Digital Humanities Program. Who should come? Technologists, Humanists, Librarians, Archivists, Museum Professionals, Academics, GIS Practitioners, Archaeologists, Undergraduates, Graduate Students, AV Geeks, Tourism Promoters, Public Historians, English Literature Types, Gallery Owners, Artists, Wikipedians, Visual Studies Folks, Journalists, Cultural Organization Workers, Material Culture Enthusiasts, Bloggers, Coders, Life-Long Learners. In short: YOU! Registration is now open at the THATCamp Philly website: http://2014.thatcampphilly.org/ You can keep in touch and keep up on developments by following THATCamp Philly on Twitter @THATCampPhilly and by joining the PhillyDH Google Group at phillydigitalhumanit...@googlegroups.com. Cheers! John Anderies for THATCamp Philly 2014
Re: [CODE4LIB] ruby-marc: how to sort fields after append?
Thanks, Steve! Thought I had tried that, but it's exactly what I was looking
for.
Jason
Jason Stirnaman
Lead, Library Technology Services
University of Kansas Medical Center
jstirna...@kumc.edu
913-588-7319
On Sep 12, 2014, at 8:06 AM, Steve Meyer steve.e.me...@gmail.com wrote:
Since the fields property of a MARC::Record is a MARC::FieldMap, which is a
subclass of Array, I use the Array.sort_by! method:
record.fields.sort_by! {|f| f.tag}
On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 12:28 AM, Jason Stirnaman jstirna...@kumc.edu
wrote:
Ruby-marc sages,
What's the best way to re-sequence fields in a record after appending to
it? This seems to work ok, but feels wrong.
for record in reader
# Return a record with new field appended.
newrecord = add_control_number(record)
### Re-sort fields by tag and copy them to a new record. ###
sortedrecord = MARC::Record.new
sortedrecord.leader = newrecord.leader
newrecord.sort_by{|f| f.tag}.each {|tag| sortedrecord.append(tag)}
writer.write(sortedrecord)
end
Thanks,
Jason
Jason Stirnaman
Lead, Library Technology Services
University of Kansas Medical Center
jstirna...@kumc.edu
913-588-7319
[CODE4LIB] Open source alternative to LibAnswers as the library IT KB for library staff?
Hi all Does anyone have a suggestion for the free open-source Q/A board + easily searchable KB comparable to LibAnswers? We already have LibAnswers for patrons. This is more for the library staff who submits a lot of similar or same questions to the Library IT help desk. It is an option to use the SharePoint Discussion Board but I am looking for an alternative since SP tends to get lukewarm responses from users in my experience. Any suggestions or feedback would be appreciated. Thanks, Bohyun
Re: [CODE4LIB] Open source alternative to LibAnswers as the library IT KB for library staff?
Well, there's LibStats: https://code.google.com/p/libstats/ It's open source and functional, but showing its age and feature poor compared to commercial projects. For example, it's primarily designed for tracking questions for statistics and reporting purposes, rather than building a knowledge base. It does have the ability to search past answers, but that's not quite the same. It also seems to be unmaintained. So your mileage may vary. Will Martin Web Services Librarian Chester Fritz Library University of North Dakota On 2014-09-12 09:41, Kim, Bohyun wrote: Hi all Does anyone have a suggestion for the free open-source Q/A board + easily searchable KB comparable to LibAnswers? We already have LibAnswers for patrons. This is more for the library staff who submits a lot of similar or same questions to the Library IT help desk. It is an option to use the SharePoint Discussion Board but I am looking for an alternative since SP tends to get lukewarm responses from users in my experience. Any suggestions or feedback would be appreciated. Thanks, Bohyun
Re: [CODE4LIB] Open source alternative to LibAnswers as the library IT KB for library staff?
On 09/12/2014 10:41 AM, Kim, Bohyun wrote: Hi all Does anyone have a suggestion for the free open-source Q/A board + easily searchable KB comparable to LibAnswers? We already have LibAnswers for patrons. This is more for the library staff who submits a lot of similar or same questions to the Library IT help desk. It is an option to use the SharePoint Discussion Board but I am looking for an alternative since SP tends to get lukewarm responses from users in my experience. Any suggestions or feedback would be appreciated. Discourse [0] if you squint really hard sort of takes care of this sort of thing no? Otherwise I would say give https://slack.com/is/team-communication a looksie. Fits that niche nicely and you have one less server to worry about. ;-) Cheers, ./fxk -- You single-handedly fought your way into this hopeless mess.
Re: [CODE4LIB] Open source alternative to LibAnswers as the library IT KB for library staff?
This discourse. http://www.discourse.org/ Cheers, ./fxk -- You single-handedly fought your way into this hopeless mess.
Re: [CODE4LIB] Open source alternative to LibAnswers as the library IT KB for library staff?
www.question2answer.org We use this for patron-facing stuff but it could be used for staff. You can log in using Facebook, Google etc. Google Groups would be an option too (free, though not open-source), esp. if you have Google Apps for your institution. -- Jeff Karlsen Librarian Library Dept. Chair Sacramento City College (916) 558-2583 www.scc.losrios.edu/library -Original Message- From: Code for Libraries [mailto:CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU] On Behalf Of Kim, Bohyun Sent: Friday, September 12, 2014 7:42 AM To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU Subject: [CODE4LIB] Open source alternative to LibAnswers as the library IT KB for library staff? Hi all Does anyone have a suggestion for the free open-source Q/A board + easily searchable KB comparable to LibAnswers? We already have LibAnswers for patrons. This is more for the library staff who submits a lot of similar or same questions to the Library IT help desk. It is an option to use the SharePoint Discussion Board but I am looking for an alternative since SP tends to get lukewarm responses from users in my experience. Any suggestions or feedback would be appreciated. Thanks, Bohyun
Re: [CODE4LIB] ruby-marc: how to sort fields after append?
Hi, On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 7:32 AM, Jason Stirnaman jstirna...@kumc.edu wrote: Thanks, Steve! Thought I had tried that, but it's exactly what I was looking for. One caveat though -- at least in MARC21, re-sorting a MARC record strictly by tag number can be incorrect for certain fields. For example, 6XX fields are meant to be ordered by the significance that the cataloger assigns to each subject heading. Here's a contrived example -- a book that is about textual criticism in general but which contains extensive examples about Biblical and Shakespearan textual criticism: 650 $a Criticism, Textual 630 $a Bible $x Criticism, Textual. 600 $a Shakespeare, William, $d 1564-1616 $x Criticism, Textual Sorting the 6XX in numerical order would be incorrect, strictly speaking. Similarly, notes fields (5XX) can be entered in AACR2 order, which doesn't necessarily correspond to numeric tag order. I can't speak to the specifics, not being well-versed in Ruby, but assuming that the underlying sort is stable, you might want to use a custom comparator that leaves the relative 5XX and 6XX field order alone. Regards, Galen -- Galen Charlton Manager of Implementation Equinox Software, Inc. / The Open Source Experts email: g...@esilibrary.com direct: +1 770-709-5581 cell: +1 404-984-4366 skype: gmcharlt web:http://www.esilibrary.com/ Supporting Koha and Evergreen: http://koha-community.org http://evergreen-ils.org
Re: [CODE4LIB] ruby-marc: how to sort fields after append?
On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 9:20 AM, Galen Charlton g...@esilibrary.com wrote: ... One caveat though -- at least in MARC21, re-sorting a MARC record strictly by tag number can be incorrect for certain fields... This is absolutely true. In addition to the fields you mention, 4XX, 7XX, and 8XX are also not necessarily in numerical order even if most records contain them this way. There is no way to programatically determine the correct sort. While this may sound totally cosmetic, it sometimes has use implications. Depending on how the sort mechanism works, you could conceivably reorder fields with the same number in the wrong order. The original question was how to resort a MARC record after appending a field which appears to be a control number. I would think it preferable to iterate through the fields and place it in the correct position (I'm assuming it's not an 001) rather than append and sort. However, record quality is such a mixed bag nowadays and getting much worse that tag order is the least of the corruption issues. Besides, most displays normalize fields so heavily that these type of distinctions simply aren't supported anymore. kyle
Re: [CODE4LIB] ruby-marc: how to sort fields after append?
I was so hoping someone would bring up position of MARC fields. Everything Kyle says is true -- and I would follow that up by saying, no one will care, even most catalogers. In fact, I wouldn't even resort the data to begin with -- outside of aesthetics, the sooner we can get away from prescribing some kind of magical meaning to field order (have you ever read the book on determining 5xx field order, I have -- it's depressing; again, who but a cataloger would know) we'll all be better off. :) --tr -Original Message- From: Code for Libraries [mailto:CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU] On Behalf Of Kyle Banerjee Sent: Friday, September 12, 2014 12:44 PM To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] ruby-marc: how to sort fields after append? On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 9:20 AM, Galen Charlton g...@esilibrary.com wrote: ... One caveat though -- at least in MARC21, re-sorting a MARC record strictly by tag number can be incorrect for certain fields... This is absolutely true. In addition to the fields you mention, 4XX, 7XX, and 8XX are also not necessarily in numerical order even if most records contain them this way. There is no way to programatically determine the correct sort. While this may sound totally cosmetic, it sometimes has use implications. Depending on how the sort mechanism works, you could conceivably reorder fields with the same number in the wrong order. The original question was how to resort a MARC record after appending a field which appears to be a control number. I would think it preferable to iterate through the fields and place it in the correct position (I'm assuming it's not an 001) rather than append and sort. However, record quality is such a mixed bag nowadays and getting much worse that tag order is the least of the corruption issues. Besides, most displays normalize fields so heavily that these type of distinctions simply aren't supported anymore. kyle
Re: [CODE4LIB] ruby-marc: how to sort fields after append?
Hi, On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 10:11 AM, Terry Reese ree...@gmail.com wrote: I was so hoping someone would bring up position of MARC fields. Everything Kyle says is true -- and I would follow that up by saying, no one will care, even most catalogers. In fact, I wouldn't even resort the data to begin with -- outside of aesthetics, the sooner we can get away from prescribing some kind of magical meaning to field order (have you ever read the book on determining 5xx field order, I have -- it's depressing; again, who but a cataloger would know) we'll all be better off. :) Indeed, field order is not a great way to convey meaning, is not going to migrate well to RDF, and there are few practical reasons to be too worried about it -- although some OPACs do at least display subject headings links in the order that they were entered in the record. However, some catalogers in my experience do care, and even if only for the sake of inter-personal harmony, avoiding unnecessary reordering of MARC fields can be a win. Regards, Galen -- Galen Charlton Manager of Implementation Equinox Software, Inc. / The Open Source Experts email: g...@esilibrary.com direct: +1 770-709-5581 cell: +1 404-984-4366 skype: gmcharlt web:http://www.esilibrary.com/ Supporting Koha and Evergreen: http://koha-community.org http://evergreen-ils.org
Re: [CODE4LIB] ruby-marc: how to sort fields after append?
Yeah, I was gonna say, I'm not sure what type of work environment Terry has or his capacity to hold his ground in the face of enraged catalogers but I think it's wise to note the sort order problem and let the original poster determine its importance in his individual environment (and his willingness to fight that battle). I say all this as someone who got caught on the wrong side of the Marc tag sort order thing (not with Ruby but with MarcEdit - yes, yes, I know who's the responsible party for MarcEdit, I'm not pointing fingers though, really I'm not and it's too long ago anyway) and I had NO IDEA that our records' tags weren't in sort order nor that it would be a problem but boy was it and those catalogers can be MEAN and scary if pressed (just kiddin'). Christina Salazar Systems Librarian John Spoor Broome Library California State University, Channel Islands 805/437-3198 -Original Message- From: Code for Libraries [mailto:CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU] On Behalf Of Galen Charlton Sent: Friday, September 12, 2014 10:23 AM To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] ruby-marc: how to sort fields after append? Hi, On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 10:11 AM, Terry Reese ree...@gmail.com wrote: I was so hoping someone would bring up position of MARC fields. Everything Kyle says is true -- and I would follow that up by saying, no one will care, even most catalogers. In fact, I wouldn't even resort the data to begin with -- outside of aesthetics, the sooner we can get away from prescribing some kind of magical meaning to field order (have you ever read the book on determining 5xx field order, I have -- it's depressing; again, who but a cataloger would know) we'll all be better off. :) Indeed, field order is not a great way to convey meaning, is not going to migrate well to RDF, and there are few practical reasons to be too worried about it -- although some OPACs do at least display subject headings links in the order that they were entered in the record. However, some catalogers in my experience do care, and even if only for the sake of inter-personal harmony, avoiding unnecessary reordering of MARC fields can be a win. Regards, Galen -- Galen Charlton Manager of Implementation Equinox Software, Inc. / The Open Source Experts email: g...@esilibrary.com direct: +1 770-709-5581 cell: +1 404-984-4366 skype: gmcharlt web:http://www.esilibrary.com/ Supporting Koha and Evergreen: http://koha-community.org http://evergreen-ils.org
Re: [CODE4LIB] ruby-marc: how to sort fields after append?
Hi, On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 10:44 AM, Salazar, Christina christina.sala...@csuci.edu wrote: Yeah, I was gonna say, I'm not sure what type of work environment Terry has or his capacity to hold his ground in the face of enraged catalogers but I think it's wise to note the sort order problem and let the original poster determine its importance in his individual environment (and his willingness to fight that battle). I kinda view attention to the MARC field sort order as a brown MM issue [1] -- it can help indicate the degree to which a given MARC tool or the results of its use have had exposure to professional catalogers. [1] http://www.snopes.com/music/artists/vanhalen.asp Regards, Galen -- Galen Charlton Manager of Implementation Equinox Software, Inc. / The Open Source Experts email: g...@esilibrary.com direct: +1 770-709-5581 cell: +1 404-984-4366 skype: gmcharlt web:http://www.esilibrary.com/ Supporting Koha and Evergreen: http://koha-community.org http://evergreen-ils.org
Re: [CODE4LIB] ruby-marc: how to sort fields after append?
LOL! I always liked you, Galen Charlton and where else but Code4Lib could you get this type of cultural blended with workplace blended with technical blended with Marc insight??? Amazing. What a great Friday in Library Land. Christina -Original Message- From: Code for Libraries [mailto:CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU] On Behalf Of Galen Charlton Sent: Friday, September 12, 2014 10:56 AM To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] ruby-marc: how to sort fields after append? Hi, On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 10:44 AM, Salazar, Christina christina.sala...@csuci.edu wrote: Yeah, I was gonna say, I'm not sure what type of work environment Terry has or his capacity to hold his ground in the face of enraged catalogers but I think it's wise to note the sort order problem and let the original poster determine its importance in his individual environment (and his willingness to fight that battle). I kinda view attention to the MARC field sort order as a brown MM issue [1] -- it can help indicate the degree to which a given MARC tool or the results of its use have had exposure to professional catalogers. [1] http://www.snopes.com/music/artists/vanhalen.asp Regards, Galen -- Galen Charlton Manager of Implementation Equinox Software, Inc. / The Open Source Experts email: g...@esilibrary.com direct: +1 770-709-5581 cell: +1 404-984-4366 skype: gmcharlt web:http://www.esilibrary.com/ Supporting Koha and Evergreen: http://koha-community.org http://evergreen-ils.org
Re: [CODE4LIB] ruby-marc: how to sort fields after append?
You are right Galen, many care. They shouldn't, but they do. A substantial set of my research time right now is being spent looking at practical applications with bibframe, linked data, and a world without MARC in general -- and I can guarantee that any information that we think we are creating by carefully ordering fields within our record for display purposes isn't going to translation (nor should it). There are big and exciting things around what we can do with library metadata and lately I've been feeling like the time and effort we spend on this level of insanity as akin to tilting at windmills. --tr -Original Message- From: Code for Libraries [mailto:CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU] On Behalf Of Galen Charlton Sent: Friday, September 12, 2014 1:23 PM To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] ruby-marc: how to sort fields after append? Hi, On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 10:11 AM, Terry Reese ree...@gmail.com wrote: I was so hoping someone would bring up position of MARC fields. Everything Kyle says is true -- and I would follow that up by saying, no one will care, even most catalogers. In fact, I wouldn't even resort the data to begin with -- outside of aesthetics, the sooner we can get away from prescribing some kind of magical meaning to field order (have you ever read the book on determining 5xx field order, I have -- it's depressing; again, who but a cataloger would know) we'll all be better off. :) Indeed, field order is not a great way to convey meaning, is not going to migrate well to RDF, and there are few practical reasons to be too worried about it -- although some OPACs do at least display subject headings links in the order that they were entered in the record. However, some catalogers in my experience do care, and even if only for the sake of inter-personal harmony, avoiding unnecessary reordering of MARC fields can be a win. Regards, Galen -- Galen Charlton Manager of Implementation Equinox Software, Inc. / The Open Source Experts email: g...@esilibrary.com direct: +1 770-709-5581 cell: +1 404-984-4366 skype: gmcharlt web:http://www.esilibrary.com/ Supporting Koha and Evergreen: http://koha-community.org http://evergreen-ils.org
Re: [CODE4LIB] ruby-marc: how to sort fields after append?
On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 10:11 AM, Terry Reese ree...@gmail.com wrote: ... In fact, I wouldn't even resort the data to begin with ... Ding! Ding! Ding! And we have a winner for easiest and most practical solution. Any user display is either not going to display the control number being appended at all, or it will list it wherever it is already listing it. So no need to reposition it. As far as grouchy catalogers go, fewer and fewer systems display bib records that look a lot like legal documents from bygone times. There are a few holdouts (mostly in environments where the display is optimized for staff rather than users), but that battle was decided years ago. kyle
Re: [CODE4LIB] ruby-marc: how to sort fields after append?
Christina, You should point fingers :), lots of catalogers have. MarcEdit, in fact, doesn't sort using MARC21 library sorting rules by default. It provides a way for catalogers to come close if they like (but you have to setup the rules yourself) -- but this is purposeful. The sorting rules are vastly different between different flavors of MARC, so any decision to enforce MARC21 sorting rules would essentially make the tool useless for everyone else. It's all about the trade-offs. :) --tr -Original Message- From: Code for Libraries [mailto:CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU] On Behalf Of Salazar, Christina Sent: Friday, September 12, 2014 1:44 PM To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] ruby-marc: how to sort fields after append? Yeah, I was gonna say, I'm not sure what type of work environment Terry has or his capacity to hold his ground in the face of enraged catalogers but I think it's wise to note the sort order problem and let the original poster determine its importance in his individual environment (and his willingness to fight that battle). I say all this as someone who got caught on the wrong side of the Marc tag sort order thing (not with Ruby but with MarcEdit - yes, yes, I know who's the responsible party for MarcEdit, I'm not pointing fingers though, really I'm not and it's too long ago anyway) and I had NO IDEA that our records' tags weren't in sort order nor that it would be a problem but boy was it and those catalogers can be MEAN and scary if pressed (just kiddin'). Christina Salazar Systems Librarian John Spoor Broome Library California State University, Channel Islands 805/437-3198 -Original Message- From: Code for Libraries [mailto:CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU] On Behalf Of Galen Charlton Sent: Friday, September 12, 2014 10:23 AM To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] ruby-marc: how to sort fields after append? Hi, On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 10:11 AM, Terry Reese ree...@gmail.com wrote: I was so hoping someone would bring up position of MARC fields. Everything Kyle says is true -- and I would follow that up by saying, no one will care, even most catalogers. In fact, I wouldn't even resort the data to begin with -- outside of aesthetics, the sooner we can get away from prescribing some kind of magical meaning to field order (have you ever read the book on determining 5xx field order, I have -- it's depressing; again, who but a cataloger would know) we'll all be better off. :) Indeed, field order is not a great way to convey meaning, is not going to migrate well to RDF, and there are few practical reasons to be too worried about it -- although some OPACs do at least display subject headings links in the order that they were entered in the record. However, some catalogers in my experience do care, and even if only for the sake of inter-personal harmony, avoiding unnecessary reordering of MARC fields can be a win. Regards, Galen -- Galen Charlton Manager of Implementation Equinox Software, Inc. / The Open Source Experts email: g...@esilibrary.com direct: +1 770-709-5581 cell: +1 404-984-4366 skype: gmcharlt web:http://www.esilibrary.com/ Supporting Koha and Evergreen: http://koha-community.org http://evergreen-ils.org
[CODE4LIB] Job: Library Systems Developer at Loyola University New Orleans
Library Systems Developer Loyola University New Orleans New Orleans The J. Edgar Louise S. Monroe Library is seeking a user- focused Library Systems Developer. The Library Systems Developer collaborates with library faculty and staff on the maintenance, customization, and assessment of the library's systems and website, contributes to the ongoing inventory of the library collection, and staffs the Learning Commons desk. The ideal candidate will demonstrate skills in project management, customer- focused service, team collaboration, and have an ability to develop skills in CSS, PHP, JavaScript, and Perl. Qualifications: Bachelor's degree preferred, excellent interpersonal, communication, and writing skills, with clear evidence of ability to interact effectively and cooperatively with colleagues and patrons; ability to work productively in a team environment; computer skills in an online, multi- tasking environment; high degree of accuracy and focus concerning complex, detailed work; high level of technical skill; collaborative and creative problem-solving ability; ability to work independently to manage multiple projects in a time sensitive environment. Application instructions at http://finance.loyno.edu/human-resources/staff- employment-opportunities Brought to you by code4lib jobs: http://jobs.code4lib.org/job/16658/ To post a new job please visit http://jobs.code4lib.org/
Re: [CODE4LIB] Open source alternative to LibAnswers as the library IT KB for library staff?
I like Spiceworks, not open source, but free. Especially for IT. Spiceworks.com Riley Childs Senior Charlotte United Christian Academy Library Services Administrator IT Services (704) 497-2086 rileychilds.net @rowdychildren From: Kim, Bohyunmailto:b...@hshsl.umaryland.edu Sent: 9/12/2014 10:42 AM To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDUmailto:CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU Subject: [CODE4LIB] Open source alternative to LibAnswers as the library IT KB for library staff? Hi all Does anyone have a suggestion for the free open-source Q/A board + easily searchable KB comparable to LibAnswers? We already have LibAnswers for patrons. This is more for the library staff who submits a lot of similar or same questions to the Library IT help desk. It is an option to use the SharePoint Discussion Board but I am looking for an alternative since SP tends to get lukewarm responses from users in my experience. Any suggestions or feedback would be appreciated. Thanks, Bohyun
Re: [CODE4LIB] ruby-marc: how to sort fields after append?
Thanks, Terry, Kyle, et al. To Terry's point, I was too lazy to review the rules for sorting fields, but hoping someone wiser would chime in. Yeah, I'm going to keep sorting indiscriminately until I see a problem or someone complains. In my example it's an 035. I considered not re-sorting at all, but it just looks so wrong, even if I am busting any field order magic in the process. Jason Jason Stirnaman Lead, Library Technology Services University of Kansas Medical Center jstirna...@kumc.edu 913-588-7319 On Sep 12, 2014, at 12:11 PM, Terry Reese ree...@gmail.com wrote: I was so hoping someone would bring up position of MARC fields. Everything Kyle says is true -- and I would follow that up by saying, no one will care, even most catalogers. In fact, I wouldn't even resort the data to begin with -- outside of aesthetics, the sooner we can get away from prescribing some kind of magical meaning to field order (have you ever read the book on determining 5xx field order, I have -- it's depressing; again, who but a cataloger would know) we'll all be better off. :) --tr -Original Message- From: Code for Libraries [mailto:CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU] On Behalf Of Kyle Banerjee Sent: Friday, September 12, 2014 12:44 PM To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] ruby-marc: how to sort fields after append? On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 9:20 AM, Galen Charlton g...@esilibrary.com wrote: ... One caveat though -- at least in MARC21, re-sorting a MARC record strictly by tag number can be incorrect for certain fields... This is absolutely true. In addition to the fields you mention, 4XX, 7XX, and 8XX are also not necessarily in numerical order even if most records contain them this way. There is no way to programatically determine the correct sort. While this may sound totally cosmetic, it sometimes has use implications. Depending on how the sort mechanism works, you could conceivably reorder fields with the same number in the wrong order. The original question was how to resort a MARC record after appending a field which appears to be a control number. I would think it preferable to iterate through the fields and place it in the correct position (I'm assuming it's not an 001) rather than append and sort. However, record quality is such a mixed bag nowadays and getting much worse that tag order is the least of the corruption issues. Besides, most displays normalize fields so heavily that these type of distinctions simply aren't supported anymore. kyle
Re: [CODE4LIB] Open source alternative to LibAnswers as the library IT KB for library staff?
Discourse.org++ On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 1:24 PM, Riley Childs rchi...@cucawarriors.com wrote: I like Spiceworks, not open source, but free. Especially for IT. Spiceworks.com Riley Childs Senior Charlotte United Christian Academy Library Services Administrator IT Services (704) 497-2086 rileychilds.net @rowdychildren From: Kim, Bohyunmailto:b...@hshsl.umaryland.edu Sent: 9/12/2014 10:42 AM To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDUmailto:CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU Subject: [CODE4LIB] Open source alternative to LibAnswers as the library IT KB for library staff? Hi all Does anyone have a suggestion for the free open-source Q/A board + easily searchable KB comparable to LibAnswers? We already have LibAnswers for patrons. This is more for the library staff who submits a lot of similar or same questions to the Library IT help desk. It is an option to use the SharePoint Discussion Board but I am looking for an alternative since SP tends to get lukewarm responses from users in my experience. Any suggestions or feedback would be appreciated. Thanks, Bohyun -- Tod Robbins Digital Asset Manager, MLIS todrobbins.com | @todrobbins http://www.twitter.com/#!/todrobbins
Re: [CODE4LIB] ruby-marc: how to sort fields after append?
A bit circular or hyperbolic? You can't have both. C On Sep 12, 2014, at 12:04 PM, Galen Charlton g...@esilibrary.com wrote: Hi, On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 11:14 AM, Terry Reese ree...@gmail.com wrote: You are right Galen, many care. They shouldn't, but they do. A substantial set of my research time right now is being spent looking at practical applications with bibframe, linked data, and a world without MARC in general -- and I can guarantee that any information that we think we are creating by carefully ordering fields within our record for display purposes isn't going to translation (nor should it). I think that's a bit circular. As a perhaps somewhat hyperbolic statement, in the case of subject headings, catalogers shouldn't care about field order because any information about degree of aboutness that's implicitly encoded via the order of headings will not transition to $FUTURE_METADATA because, in part, existing tools either mangle field order or have done nothing useful with it because ILS designers haven't cared about it. And thus a pattern of fingerpointing can continue! Now, there's a slew of assumptions to unpack here and probably little testing to back up most /any/ view on the matter (though I would be very happy to be corrected on that point): - It is possible to somehow quantify the degree to which a concept applies to a bibliographic entity - Such quantification can be done consistently enough by human beings (or textual analysis? strong AIs?) to be reasonably actionable - Software exists or can be economically written that does something with that data. E.g., tweak relevancy ranking? Feed into a recommendation mill?Something else? - Whatever gets done with that data can provide a reasonably concrete benefit to expert users. - ... to naive users. - ... to other information systems that have reason to consume library metadata. - Even if there is no useful way that aboutness-qualification can be used for search, it is useful for displays. - Existing MARC data exists of sufficiently quality where aboutness-qualification can be usefully extracted. - There exists any way to identify such MARC records. (Of course, there's no way to tell just by looking at a given MARC record; the only criteria that immediately comes to mind to identify such records is possibly who cataloged them). - There exist people willing and able to test any of these assumptions... - ... who will be paid or otherwise appropriately compensated. There are big and exciting things around what we can do with library metadata and lately I've been feeling like the time and effort we spend on this level of insanity as akin to tilting at windmills. Channeling my AUTOCAT side, I can imagine a rejoinder to the effect that there are big and exciting things that could have been done with MARC data that software developers never acted on. My Code4Lib side immediately jumps in and says: but you catalogers never clearly articulated what you were up to with your long lists of cataloging rules in a way that made sense to us developers. Let's just say my internal debates can be fun. :) Seriously, I don't disagree that that there are bigger metadata fish to fry than what's represented by the MARC field order question, and I certainly agree that there big and exciting things that we can be doing. However, I think there's also a history of bad communication between catalogers and programmers that is getting in the way of moving forward (and don't get me wrong, Terry - your efforts have been HUGE in keeping conversation going). Regards, Galen -- Galen Charlton Manager of Implementation Equinox Software, Inc. / The Open Source Experts email: g...@esilibrary.com direct: +1 770-709-5581 cell: +1 404-984-4366 skype: gmcharlt web:http://www.esilibrary.com/ Supporting Koha and Evergreen: http://koha-community.org http://evergreen-ils.org
