 |
 |
Thanks, Karen. I see what you mean. The less a field is used, the less useful it becomes, which means the less it is used. :) I hope this changes with RDA! Connie From: Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Karen Coyle Sent: Friday, January 18, 2013 3:20 PM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: [BIBFRAME] Input screens In the US, which follows Library of Congress practice pretty carefully, LC opted to no longer provide those subfields in its data some decades back (someone here will know the exact date), and so their usage dropped off. If they aren't in many of the records then it is hard to do something sensible with them in terms of indexing and display in systems, and so there is less incentive to add them to the records.... and around it goes. I believe that the intention with RDA is to re-recognize this information as important and make use of it in the future. kc On 1/18/13 12:14 PM, Tennant,Roy wrote: Others on this list are much more qualified to speculate than I. I am merely reporting the facts "on the ground". Having said that, please keep in mind that WorldCat is increasingly a world-wide aggregation of library metadata, and as such it reflects a diversity of cataloging practices, not just those dictated by AACR2. Roy On 1/18/13 1/18/13 * 11:26 AM, "Godsey-Bell, Connie F. (LNG-DAY)" <[log in to unmask]><mailto:[log in to unmask]> wrote: Thanks Roy. Those are really small percentages. Why so small? Is the information not available? Do the editors who input the data not have time to add it? I'm brand new to the MARC world, so am not familiar with its culture and challenges. Connie From: Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Tennant,Roy Sent: Friday, January 18, 2013 2:13 PM To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: [BIBFRAME] Input screens Let me do this again (from scratch, even). The following are the number of records that have the listed elements, out of 289,294,984 records processed, as of 1 January 2013 in WorldCat: 700 $4: 14,229,291 or 4.92% of the total 700 $e: 9,904,536 or 3.42% of the total Roy On 1/18/13 1/18/13 * 10:33 AM, "Ross Singer" <[log in to unmask]><mailto:[log in to unmask]> wrote: On Jan 18, 2013, at 1:11 PM, "Godsey-Bell, Connie F. (LNG-DAY)" <[log in to unmask]><mailto:[log in to unmask]> wrote: Hi, What percent of the total do the total occurrences represent? And what number of unique records have a 700 with a $4 or an $e? -Ross. Thanks, Connie Godsey-Bell, Editor LexisNexis From: Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum [mailto:[log in to unmask] <http://LISTSERV.LOC.GOV><http://LISTSERV.LOC.GOV> ] On Behalf Of Tennant,Roy Sent: Friday, January 18, 2013 12:42 PM To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: [BIBFRAME] Input screens On 1/18/13 1/18/13 * 9:24 AM, "Ross Singer" <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote: How often, on aggregate, is the 100 or 700 $4 or $e used? Since I've parsed a lot of MARC records, I can tell you. Not much (and the inconsistency of the $e makes this even less useful). I can tell you exactly, as of December 1, 2012 in WorldCat: Total number of records: 287,229,344 Total occurrences of a 700 field: 80,731,356 Total occurrences of 700 $4: 24,908,408 Total occurrences of a 700 $e: 14,117,538 Roy -- Karen Coyle [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> http://kcoyle.net ph: 1-510-540-7596 m: 1-510-435-8234 skype: kcoylenet