XSLT stylesheet for MARCXML (if it is a loss-less representation of
MARC) would be orders of magnitude more reusable piece of code than
this Python script.
On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 1:40 AM, Karen Coyle <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Well, in the famed "this is not code" Zepheira python module with the
> MARC-to-BF mapping, there is no listing for 006, 007 or 008.
> On 4/22/15 2:18 PM, Tim Thompson wrote:
>> I'm currently working on a pilot project to describe a collection of
>> unprocessed serials using BIBFRAME, and I'm wondering whether anyone who has
>> tested or worked on the current vocabulary has focused on how it represents
>> serials, specifically.
>> I'm finding that BF seems to preserve the stringy data from MARC (although
>> sometimes with a loss of semantics--for example, just a general bf:note for
>> MARC's 515 field) while ignoring some of the structured data in the fixed
>> For serials, the 008 field lets you be pretty specific about things
>> like Publication Status, Frequency, Regularity, Type of Continuing Resource,
>> etc., with coded values for each. I'm not a serials cataloger, but this kind
>> of data seems worth recording/preserving, doesn't it?
>>  http://www.loc.gov/marc/bibliographic/bd515.html
>>  Sample MARC record:
>>  Converted to BF:
>>  http://www.loc.gov/marc/bibliographic/bd008.html
>> Tim A. Thompson
>> Metadata Librarian (Spanish/Portuguese Specialty)
>> Princeton University Library
> Karen Coyle
> [log in to unmask] http://kcoyle.net
> m: +1-510-435-8234
> skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600