LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for BIBFRAME Archives


BIBFRAME Archives

BIBFRAME Archives


BIBFRAME@LISTSERV.LOC.GOV


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

BIBFRAME Home

BIBFRAME Home

BIBFRAME  January 2013

BIBFRAME January 2013

Subject:

Re: LC's BIBFRAME vocabulary

From:

Karen Coyle <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

[log in to unmask]

Date:

Mon, 28 Jan 2013 10:04:22 -0800

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (137 lines)

Roy, I don't think a gross statistical count is enough to let us know 
which fields are important, since some only apply to certain types of 
materials that occur less frequently (e.g. objects, archival materials, 
sheet music). So although a count is interesting, it's going to take 
some more semantic analysis.

As an example, one field that I would greatly miss is the 502 
Dissertation Note. Unless things have changed since I was still 
processing MARC records, the presence of this note is the only way to 
know that what you have is a dissertation. Obviously folks in academic 
libraries would want to be able to limit some searches to dissertations. 
(I'd be happy for "dissertation" to be a value somewhere in the future 
record -- although we'd still need the information that is in the note, 
and it might need some special treatment.)

Also, the sparsity of the obsolete fields in the 4XX area may be an 
OCLC-specific datum. My guess is that OCLC did automated cleanup of 
those fields. There may be many local catalogs that still have a 
significant number of records with those obsolete fields because they 
didn't have that capability.

In the end, we should be driven not by what is in MARC records today, 
and definitely not by how things look in one single (albeit large) 
bibliographic database. We need to be looking at use cases, and what 
services we wish to provide. Do we think someone is going to want to 
limit searches to dissertations? If so, that is information that helps 
us make decisions.

kc


On 1/28/13 9:49 AM, Tennant,Roy wrote:
> Could we please not make the mistake of thinking every field is worth the
> same? Of the fields below (see my report below), some do not appear at all
> within the WorldCat aggregation, whereas others appear a significant amount
> and a bunch are somewhere in between. If a tag only appears 33 times out of
> nearly 300 million MARC records, it likely isn't as important as one that
> appears over 50 million times. Just sayin'.
> Roy Tennant
> OCLC Research
>
> Out of 289,294,984 WorldCat records as of 1 January 2013:
>
> 016 (vital for Canadian libraries) - 50,439,937
> 055 (vital for Canadian libraries) - 3,201,913
> 060 (vital for medical libraries) - 2,190,698
> 070 (vital for agricultural libraries) - 1,069,479
> 080 (important for some European libraries) - 9,601,435
> OCLC's 090 - 12,166,182
> OCLC's 092 - 4,915,415
> 210 - 806,622
> 222 - 1,358,049
> 245$h - 79,201,026
> 247 - 242,964
> 264 - 53,586
> 336 - 198,637
> 337 - 199,079
> 338 - 140,598
> 440 - 2,852
> 400 - 33
> 410 - 9
> 411 - 0
> 503 (although obsolete, they exist in records) - 0
> 506 - 8,113,210
> 538 - 10,079,036
> 540 - 13,952,558
> 546 - 23,424,048
> 611 - 318,521
> 77X - multiple fields
> 78X - multiple fields
> 800 - 1,171,608
> 810 - 2,427,695
> 811 - 18,994
> 830 - 47,490,770
>
>
> On 1/27/13 1/27/13  5:19 PM, "J. McRee Elrod" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>>>   https://github.com/lcnetdev/marc2bibframe/blob/master/python/lib/marc.py.
>>> Anyone experiencing a sleepless night should consider this task :-).
>>
>> Again, interesting.
>>
>> Many MARC fields and subfields are not named, e.g.:
>>
>> All fixed fields
>> 016 (vital for Canadian libraries)
>> 055 (vital for Canadian libraries)
>> 060 (vital for medical libraries)
>> 070 (vital for agricultural libraries)
>> 080 (important for some European libraries)
>> OCLC's 090, 092
>> 210
>> 222
>> (but seldom used 243 is included)
>> 245$h
>> 247
>> 264
>> 336
>> 337
>> 338
>> 440, 400, 410, 411, 503 (although obsolete, they exist in records)
>> All 5XX notes seem undifferentiated except 505, 520, and 521, making a
>>    walk back to MARC impossible.
>> 506
>> 538
>> 540
>> 546
>> 611
>> 77X
>> 78X
>> 800
>> 810
>> 811
>> 830
>> etc.
>>
>> These missing fields are just those we have used, or often use,
>> without reference to MARC21 fields given in documentation, which are
>> *much* more extensive.
>>
>> So far, this seems a *very* dumbed down conversion, lacking information
>> important to our clients.
>>
>>
>>     __       __   J. McRee (Mac) Elrod ([log in to unmask])
>>    {__  |   /     Special Libraries Cataloguing   HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
>>    ___} |__ \__________________________________________________________
>>

-- 
Karen Coyle
[log in to unmask] http://kcoyle.net
ph: 1-510-540-7596
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
July 2011
June 2011

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.LOC.GOV

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager