Hi to all,
At 01.52 19/11/03, Morbus Iff wrote:
My assumption at the time was that the above MARC::Record methods also
applied to MARC::Field objects, allowing creations like this:
my $author = MARC::Field->new(
'100',1,'',
a => 'Logan, Robert K.',
d => '1939-'
);
On Wed, 19 November, 2003 08:16, Tajoli Zeno wrote:
>
> In fact I don't subscribe this type of changes.
> Why ?
> Because they hard coded in the module the USMARC/MARC21 standard.
>
> There different flouvers of MARC, the Library of Congress mantains USMARC
> .
> For example I use Unimarc, mantaine
>The OCLC conventions are probably much more widely known than the LC
>ones simply because most libraries doing copy cataloging use OCLC as
>their utility.
The LC also uses $ to represent sub-tags (I think that's what
they're called; just woke up... the $a/$b things). But, I
seem to see _a and _b
On Tue, Nov 18, 2003 at 10:50:22PM -0600, Chuck Bearden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 18, 2003 at 07:50:39PM -0600, Ed Summers wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 18, 2003 at 08:11:39PM -0500, Morbus Iff wrote:
> > > MARC::Field->new('100','1','', a=>'Logan, Robert K.', d=>'1939-'),
> > > MARC::Fie
Quoting from "MARC 21 Specifications for Record Structure,
Character Sets, and Exchange Media
RECORD STRUCTURE",
http://www.loc.gov/marc/specifications/specrecstruc.html#varifields
"Indicators may be any ASCII lowercase alphabetic, numeric, or blank"
Period. As mentioned by others, the '#' or '
Anne L. Highsmith says:
>Quoting from "MARC 21 Specifications for Record Structure,
>Character Sets, and Exchange Media RECORD STRUCTURE",
>http://www.loc.gov/marc/specifications/specrecstruc.html#varifields
>"Indicators may be any ASCII lowercase alphabetic, numeric, or blank"
So, if that's the ca
On Wed, Nov 19, 2003 at 07:43:52AM -0500, Morbus Iff wrote:
> The LC also uses $ to represent sub-tags (I think that's what
> they're called; just woke up... the $a/$b things). But, I
> seem to see _a and _b more often. Which is more prevalent?
LC's MARCMaker/MARCBreaker utilities use $ if I remem
On Wed, Nov 19, 2003 at 09:43:51AM -0500, Morbus Iff wrote:
> if ( $indicator !~ /^[0-9 ]$/ ) {
Perhaps, but we've yet to have anyone complain :) I guess it would
be ok to loosen this behavior if you have a pressing need for it. But I would
steer away from adding features just for the sake of add
This sounds more like a specification than a feature and so should probably
be added?
Ben
On Wed, 19 November, 2003 15:14, Ed Summers wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 19, 2003 at 09:43:51AM -0500, Morbus Iff wrote:
> > if ( $indicator !~ /^[0-9 ]$/ ) {
>
> Perhaps, but we've yet to have anyone complain :)
> Perhaps, but we've yet to have anyone complain :)
That's pretty much the strategy we've had on features in MARC::Record,
and my strategy for any module: If someone needs it, I'll put it in. If
they don't, I won't.
xoa
--
Andy Lester => [EMAIL PROTECTED] => www.petdance.com => AIM:petdance
On Wed, Nov 19, 2003 at 10:29:42AM +, Ben Soares wrote:
> I haven't used it so can't really say anything from experience, but it's
> developed on behalf of the British Library so it's from a highly credible
> source.
Thanks for the pointer to USEMARCON. I hadn't heard about it, and the topic
Hi all,
Whatever happened to the update_leader() method in MARC::Record?
I see there's an update_leader() method in MARC::File::USMARC, but I can't
work out how you're supposed to use it. At first glance at the code, it
looks like update_leader() and _build_tag_directory() have fallen out of
On Wed, Nov 19, 2003 at 04:22:41PM +, Ben Soares wrote:
> I see there's an update_leader() method in MARC::File::USMARC, but I can't
> work out how you're supposed to use it. At first glance at the code, it
> looks like update_leader() and _build_tag_directory() have fallen out of
> MARC::R
Has anyone encountered targeted spam from perl4lib or oss4lib posts?
I've posted numerous times to perl4lib, and once to oss4lib. Just now,
I suddenly got a spam for "BowkerLink", which submits to Ulrich's
Periodicals Directory, something right in line with my earlier
questions. Besides friends/IM,
Hello,
MARC::Record::leader() doesn't have the same function as update_leader().
leader() seems to be a setter/getter method, but to set you need to know
what you're setting to beforehand.
update_leader() used to be really handy when you read in a MARC::Record from
somewhere, changed or added
>update_leader() used to be really handy when you read in a MARC::Record from
>somewhere, changed or added a few fields. Then to update the leader to
>reflect those changes you only had to call $record->update_leader() and not
>have to do any tedious and possibly incorrect calculations yourself to
On Wed, Nov 19, 2003 at 05:00:53PM +, Ben Soares wrote:
> update_leader() used to be really handy when you read in a MARC::Record from
> somewhere, changed or added a few fields. Then to update the leader to
> reflect those changes you only had to call $record->update_leader() and not
> hav
On Wed, Nov 19, 2003 at 11:50:05AM -0500, Morbus Iff wrote:
> Has anyone encountered targeted spam from perl4lib or oss4lib posts?
> I've posted numerous times to perl4lib, and once to oss4lib. Just now,
> I suddenly got a spam for "BowkerLink", which submits to Ulrich's
> Periodicals Directory, so
On Wed, Nov 19, 2003 at 09:16:20AM +0100, Tajoli Zeno wrote:
> Hi to all,
>
> At 01.52 19/11/03, Morbus Iff wrote:
>
[...]
> >Is that something anyone would be interested in? I suspect there are a huge
> >amount of problems with the approach (most prominently that the idea of
> >using tag numbers
Yup, looks like it. This is a new one on me, who haven't really studied
MARC since I escaped from MARBI in 1992. Maybe this is a USMARC->MARC 21
change, i.e. something that came in with MARC 21? Or was it a change in
the ANSI or ISO standards? I don't think lowercase alphabetics were
valid indicato
>Yup, looks like it. This is a new one on me, who haven't really studied
>MARC since I escaped from MARBI in 1992. Maybe this is a USMARC->MARC 21
>change, i.e. something that came in with MARC 21? Or was it a change in
>the ANSI or ISO standards? I don't think lowercase alphabetics were
>valid ind
On Wed, Nov 19, 2003 at 07:43:52AM -0500, Morbus Iff wrote:
> >The OCLC conventions are probably much more widely known than the LC
> >ones simply because most libraries doing copy cataloging use OCLC as
> >their utility.
>
> The LC also uses $ to represent sub-tags (I think that's what
> they're
On Wed, Nov 19, 2003 at 08:57:52AM -0600, Anne Highsmith wrote:
> Yup, looks like it. This is a new one on me, who haven't really studied
> MARC since I escaped from MARBI in 1992. Maybe this is a USMARC->MARC 21
> change, i.e. something that came in with MARC 21? Or was it a change in
> the ANSI o
On Wed, Nov 19, 2003 at 11:20:41AM -0600, Ed Summers wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 19, 2003 at 11:50:05AM -0500, Morbus Iff wrote:
> > Has anyone encountered targeted spam from perl4lib or oss4lib posts?
> > I've posted numerous times to perl4lib, and once to oss4lib. Just now,
> > I suddenly got a spam for
I thought twice about sending this, mostly from the "should I contribute
more to the signal/noise damage I've created", but wanted to clarify:
* The smiley at the end was intentional and deliberate; without
it, it makes me seem upset. With it, I hoped to express only
that "it wasn't cool" no
25 matches
Mail list logo
