Print

Print


An interesting variant, if it's easy to run:   what are the counts using
 distinct work-sets instead of records?
Another variant that might be interesting:  if records are filtered to
exclude only those with, say, ten or more holdings,

Simon

On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 2:12 PM, Tennant,Roy <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>  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]>
> wrote:
>
> On Jan 18, 2013, at 1:11 PM, "Godsey-Bell, Connie F. (LNG-DAY)" <
> [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] <[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]
> *Subject:* Re: [BIBFRAME] Input screens
>
> On 1/18/13 1/18/13  9:24 AM, "Ross Singer" <[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
>
>
>