> 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 th
On Jul 11, 2016, at 4:32 PM, Kyle Banerjee 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 solut
nston, IL 60208
www.library.northwestern.edu
k-mill...@northwestern.edu
874.467.3462
-Original Message-
From: Code for Libraries [mailto:CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU] On Behalf Of Trail,
Nate
Sent: Monday, July 11, 2016 2:24 PM
To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU
Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] date fields
Don't
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
There's some super useful data in the MARC fixed fields too -- more useful
than the semi-transcribed values in 260c, although it's also a pain to
access/transform to something reasonably machine actionable.
Here's the code from traject that tries to get a reasonable date out of
marc fixed fields,
==
Nate Trail
LS/ABA/NDMSO
Library of Congress
n...@loc.gov
-Original Message-
From: Code for Libraries [mailto:CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU] On Behalf Of Joy
Nelson
Sent: Monday, July 11, 2016 3:19 PM
To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU
Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] date fields
Hi Eric-
Are you pla
[CODE4LIB] date fields
Hi Eric-
Are you planning on storing the 'normalized' dates for ever in the MARC?
i.e. leave the c1900 in the 260$c and have 1900 in another place?
I think what you do depends on your ILS and tools. My first reaction would
be to stash the date in an unused subf
Hi Eric-
Are you planning on storing the 'normalized' dates for ever in the MARC?
i.e. leave the c1900 in the 260$c and have 1900 in another place?
I think what you do depends on your ILS and tools. My first reaction would
be to stash the date in an unused subfield in the 260. If your system
all
I’m looking for date fields.
Or more specifically, I have been given a pile o’ MARC records, and I will be
extracting for analysis the values of dates from MARC 260$c. From the resulting
set of values — which will include all sorts of string values ([1900], c1900,
190?, 19—, 1900, etc.) — I pla
