Yes. The program is simply counting the number of 020 $a's it finds in
each record. If necessary, it could be altered to count the two kinds
separately.
Roy
On 5/21/13 5/21/13 • 2:28 AM, "Shlomo Sanders"
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>Are you counting 10 digit and 13 digit as 2 different ISBNs?
>
>Thanks,
>Shlomo
>
>Experience the all-new, singing and dancing interactive Primo brochure
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum
>[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Tennant,Roy
>Sent: Monday, May 20, 2013 22:33
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Re: [BIBFRAME] Instance of ISBNs in MARC records
>
>Corrected figures. The main difference is that the position of single
>instances and 4 instances switched.
>
>NO. of Recs ISBNs Percent
>
>230444194 0 77.71%
> 55668178 2 18.77%
> 4766652 1 1.61%
> 3708352 4 1.25%
> 616623 3 0.21%
> 411230 6 0.14%
> 125715 8 0.04%
> 65796 5 0.02%
> 45304 10 0.02%
> 30155 12 0.01%
>
>Roy
>
>On 5/20/13 5/20/13 • 11:29 AM, "Tennant,Roy"
><[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
>
>Mea culpa. I discovered that my algorithm for producing the numbers below
>was fatally flawed. I was only checking for the existence of an 020
>field, when in fact I should have been checking for the existence of an
>020 $a, since you can have $c "Terms of availability" without a $a.
>Therefore, the numbers below are over-counting the existence of ISBNs. I
>will see if I can correct the algorithm and provide more accurate
>numbers. So sorry for the oversight.
>Roy
>
>On 5/20/13 5/20/13 € 8:06 AM, "Tennant,Roy"
><[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
>
>As requested, numbers from WorldCat, the 1 May 2013 Research snapshot,
>with 296,589,450 records:
>
>NO. of Recs ISBNs Percent
>
>230402772 0 77.68%
>58861390 2 19.85%
> 4269211 4 1.44%
> 1659221 1 0.56%
> 515674 6 0.17%
> 466645 3 0.16%
> 151133 8 0.05%
> 84572 5 0.03%
> 51967 10 0.02%
> 33372 12 0.01%
>
>Keep in mind that WorldCat, being the largest library union database in
>the world, includes a great deal of material that pre-dates the
>establishment of the ISBN.
>Roy
>
>From: Shlomo Sanders
><[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
><mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>
>Reply-To: Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum
><[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]><mailto:BIBFRA
>[log in to unmask]>>
>Date: Monday, May 20, 2013 5/20/13 € 6:19 AM
>To:
>"[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]><mailto:BIBFRA
>[log in to unmask]>"
><[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]><mailto:BIBFRA
>[log in to unmask]>>
>Subject: Re: [BIBFRAME] Instance of ISBNs in MARC records
>
>From a large sample of data that we get from publishers:
>
> * Only 24.5% with one ISBN!
> * 40% with multiple ISBNs!
> * Largest group has no ISBN!
>
>
>ISBN Count Percentage of records with X ISBNs
>0 38.57%
>1 24.49%
>2 17.00%
>3 5.88%
>4 10.77%
>5 2.14%
>6 0.65%
>7 0.09%
>8 0.12%
>9 0.24%
>10 0.04%
>
>
>Thanks,
>Shlomo
>
>Experience the all-new, singing and dancing interactive Primo brochure
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum
>[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of J. McRee Elrod
>Sent: Sunday, May 19, 2013 20:34
>To:
>[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]><mailto:BIBFRAM
>[log in to unmask]>
>Subject: Re: [BIBFRAME] Instance of ISBNs in MARC records
>
>In SLC's database of over 300,000 records, over 169,000 have no ISBN,
>over 114,000 have one, over 19,000 have two, and the number of ISBNs
>ranges up to 36 in one record.
>
>For us, Instances can't be based on ISBNs.
>
>
>Total Records: 315389
>
>020s Records
>
>00 169021
>01 114221
>02 19745
>03 7403
>04 3238
>05 1149
>06 344
>07 118
>08 29
>09 42
>10 11
>11 16
>12 10
>13 12
>14 4
>15 5
>16 3
>17 7
>18 1
>19 1
>21 1
>22 1
>23 1
>25 3
>27 1
>28 1
>36 1
>
>
>
> __ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod
>([log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]><mailto:[log in to unmask]>)
> {__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
> ___} |__ \__________________________________________________________
>
>
>
|