Reusable, yes. Consistent, no.
> On Apr 22, 2015, at 9:33 PM, Martynas Jusevičius <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> 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