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  February 2013

BIBFRAME February 2013

Subject:

Re: Filing indicators

From:

Amy Turner <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Mon, 11 Feb 2013 15:50:18 +0000

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (58 lines)

Charley, I asked my LTI contact about preparing for the non-MARC future, and she expects that it will take a long time for all the clients (many of them smaller libraries) to get off MARC, and in the meantime there will be crosswalks and LTI will continue to use the routines that they have built around MARC.  It is hard to imagine how else to prepare, given so many open questions about where we are going!  Once the general direction becomes more certain, I expect that flexible vendors will find a niche.  If our databases become less local and more linked back to LC, etc., there are services that could be sold to those big players.

Thinking a little bit more about my basic idea of programs and catalogers working together, maybe what we need is a system that is programmed to recognize standard use of A, an, the, la, le, etc. (which people often miss), while exceptions are somehow coded.   Especially if we are linking back to a master record at LC, etc., even if exceptional cases are not recognized at first, they would eventually be caught.   All this assuming that searching protocols of the future don't make the whole issue just seem "SO 20th century."

Amy



-----Original Message-----
From: Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Charles Pennell
Sent: Monday, February 11, 2013 10:18 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [BIBFRAME] Filing indicators

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 encounter.

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?

   Charley

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.
>
> Amy
>
> -----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.
>
>     -tree



--
Charley Pennell
Principal Cataloger
NCSU Libraries
North Carolina State University

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

November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
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