Print

Print


Here's the code to insert after line 2278:

	<xsl:for-each select="marc:datafield[@tag='035'][marc:subfield[@code='a'][contains(text(), '(OCoLC)')]]">
		<identifier type="oclc">
			<xsl:value-of select="normalize-space(substring-after(marc:subfield[@code='a'], '(OCoLC)'))"/>
		</identifier>
	</xsl:for-each>

A diff file is also attached.

-Tod



On Jan 12, 2011, at 1:50 PM, Tod Olson wrote:

> My approach would be to use only numbers from those 035s which contain the "(OCoLC)" prefix, since that seems to be what OCLC produces.  Wouldn't get all possible OCLC numbers, but it catches the only case where I'm confident that the field has an OCLC number.
> 
> -Tod
> 
> On Jan 12, 2011, at 1:01 PM, Cory Rockliff wrote:
> 
>> Wouldn't one problem be the different places an OCLC number can occur in 
>> a MARC record? Depending on the ILS and its configuration, it can wind 
>> up in 001, 035, 907, etc., and without a prefix like '(OCoLC),' which 
>> isn't always present, there's no way to distinguish an OCLC number 
>> programmatically from any other identifier...
>> 
>> On 1/12/11 1:46 PM, Guenther, Rebecca wrote:
>>> That is the appropriate place.
>>> As you probably know, we are not controlling the list of type values for identifier, although we may in the future establish a controlled vocabulary for it.
>>> It makes sense to fix the stylesheet unless people using MODS object to retaining the OCLC number in a converted record.
>>> 
>>> Rebecca
>>> 
>>> Rebecca S. Guenther
>>> Senior Networking&  Standards Specialist
>>> Network Development&  MARC Standards Office
>>> Library of Congress
>>> 101 Independence Ave SE
>>> Washington, DC 20540
>>> voice: +1.202.707.5092
>>> fax: +1.202.707.0115
>>> [log in to unmask]
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Metadata Object Description Schema List [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Tod Olson
>>> Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2011 12:36 PM
>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>> Subject: [MODS] OCLC number in MARC to MODS conversion
>>> 
>>> I have a situation where it would be useful to have the OCLC number preserved when a MARC record is converted to MODS, it would make some kinds of linking out from displays a bit more robust.  It seems that the OCLC number could go into a<identifier type='oclc'>.
>>> 
>>> Does anyone see a glaring problem with that idea?  Is there a better place that I'm overlooking?
>>> 
>>> Would there be any interest in a patch to MARC21slim2MODS3-4.xsl for this operation?
>>> 
>>> -Tod
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Tod Olson<[log in to unmask]>
>>> Systems Librarian
>>> University of Chicago Library
>>> ---
>>> [This E-mail scanned for viruses by Declude Virus]
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> Cory Rockliff
>> Technical Services Librarian
>> Bard Graduate Center: Decorative Arts, Design History, Material Culture
>> 18 West 86th Street
>> New York, NY 10024
>> T: (212) 501-3037
>> [log in to unmask]
>> 
>> BGC Exhibitions:
>> In the Main Gallery:
>> January 26, 2011� April 17, 2011
>> Cloisonn�: Chinese Enamels from the Yuan, Ming, and Qing Dynasties
>> Organized in collaboration with the Mus�e des arts D�coratifs, Paris.
>> In the Focus Gallery:
>> January 26, 2011� April 17, 2011
>> Objects of Exchange: Social and Material Transformation on the Late-Nineteenth-Century Northwest Coast
>> Organized in collaboration with the American Museum of Natural History
>> 
>> ---
>> [This E-mail scanned for viruses by Declude Virus]
> 
> Tod Olson <[log in to unmask]>
> Systems Librarian
> University of Chicago Library
> 
> 
> 

Tod Olson <[log in to unmask]>
Systems Librarian
University of Chicago Library