I've imagined that non-filing indicators would be handled using
mark-up that isolates the skip characters in much the same way we do
at present for other XML mark-up schemas. Of course, as with MARC,
that assumes that the coder notices (or perhaps recognizes, in the
case of non-native languages) the words to be skipped! We've all
encountered MARC records, either locally or from our utilities, that
have non-filing indicators that are zeroed out or off-count. We
usually find these through a browse of the indexes or through random
Which brings up another interesting question, namely how are the LTIs
and Marcives of the world prepping themselves for a non-MARC future,
since we are talking about revenue streams here. At the root of this
question is the question of how they are prepping themselves for a
world of linked data in which libraries link back to LC, NLM, NAL,
Getty, OCLC, BL, or LAC rather than to the vendors?
On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 9:38 AM, Amy Turner <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> The language code in the record as a whole is used for the 245; since 740s can be in different languages, different protocols are used.
> Good point about language recognition on short strings. My main point was that we should be thinking "outside the box" re non-filing indicators. Reinhold Heuvelmann's post alludes to several possibilities. He writes " While it may be true that there are technical provisions to try and figure out, I'd still prefer to rely on the people cataloging, and their experiences." Our experience with the LTI fix indicates that while catalogers as a group have a lot of knowledge about the ins and outs of non-filing indicators, there is a high error rate even at an institution that has traditionally prided itself on examining copy carefully. The ideal system should use programming based on human experiences to identify human error, with fine tuning for odd cases that look like error.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Tom Emerson
> Sent: Monday, February 11, 2013 9:22 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [BIBFRAME] Filing indicators
> Amy Turner writes:
>> They work from the language code, lists of articles by language, lists
>> of exceptional phrases "A is for ...", and specific cases of titles
>> that are not in the language of the text.
> Do you find that records have valid language codes for specific fields like titles? In my experience the language codes, if they exist, can be inconsistent.
>> Language recognition software, rather than the language code, could be
>> used (Following LTI processing, we corrected hundreds of language
>> codes that erroneous non-filing fix had revealed).
> On short strings language recognition is very difficult: I haven't had much luck with it on strings under 250 characters or so.
North Carolina State University