On Tue, Nov 18, 2003 at 07:52:04PM -0500, Morbus Iff wrote:
> Is that something anyone would be interested in? I suspect there are a huge
> amount of problems with the approach (most prominently that the idea of
> using
> tag numbers was to reduce typing in the first place), but has anyone ever
>
On Tue, Nov 18, 2003 at 07:50:39PM -0600, Ed Summers wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 18, 2003 at 08:11:39PM -0500, Morbus Iff wrote:
> > MARC::Field->new('100','1','', a=>'Logan, Robert K.', d=>'1939-'),
> > MARC::Field->new('100','1','#', a=>'Logan, Robert K.', d=>'1939-'),
>
> I don't like this. The # is
At 8:59 PM -0600 11/17/03, Ed Summers wrote:
>On Mon, Nov 17, 2003 at 09:15:22PM -0500, Morbus Iff wrote:
>> > Since MARC tags less than 010 can not have indicators or subfields,
>> > not allowing those ::Field methods to be called on those tags make sense.
>> > However, this should be a warn(),
Ed and everyone else: I've finished my fiddling with the Doc::Tutorial:
correcting grammar, renumbering the recipes for easier maintenance, and
yadda yadda yadda. It's been committed to CVS.
--
Morbus Iff ( i am the horrible hogglewart )
Technical: http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/au/779
Culture: h
On Tue, Nov 18, 2003 at 08:11:39PM -0500, Morbus Iff wrote:
> MARC::Field->new('100','1','', a=>'Logan, Robert K.', d=>'1939-'),
> MARC::Field->new('100','1','#', a=>'Logan, Robert K.', d=>'1939-'),
I don't like this. The # is used simply as a typographical convention in LC's
online docs. It has
On Tue, Nov 18, 2003 at 08:00:26PM -0500, Morbus Iff wrote:
> How far does "different data formats" apply? Only to MARC subsets? What if
> I wanted to make MARC::File::MODS? MARC::File::DublinCore? Would those be
> considered valid data formats for extension?
Yes, this was always the hope that the
On Tue, Nov 18, 2003 at 07:52:04PM -0500, Morbus Iff wrote:
> my $author = MARC::Field->new;
> $author->author_name('Logan, Robert K.');
> $author->author_data('1939-');
>
> my $title = MARC::Field->new;
> $title->something("The alphabet effect /';
> $title->authority( $author->author_
In the LC's brochure, a blank indicator is referred with a # character,
and followed with this explanation: "It is the convention to represent a
blank, or undefined, indicator position by the character "#"." If that's
the case, MARC::Field should accept the following as equivalent:
MARC::Field->
In MARC::Doc::Tutorial, it mentions:
Note to the curious: the C method is actually an alias to the
MARC::File::USMARC C method. Having separate C methods is
a design feature of the MARC class hierarchy, since it allows extensions to
be built that translate MARC::Record objects into different
As part of my first messages to the list, I blurbed:
Is anyone interested in a MARC::Simple sort of module, that would
"use English"-ize all the tags themselves ($record->author_name("Logan,
Robert K.") and $record->author_date("1939-"), which would just be
wrappers around MARC::Field and the
When I ran Lint on a file of records, one of the errors I received was "250:
Subfield _b is not allowed."
According to the most recent documentation, 250$b is $b - Remainder of
edition statement (NR). I do not know when this change took place, but it
has been around for as long as I can remember (t
On Sun, Nov 16, 2003 at 08:25:41AM -0600, Ed Summers wrote:
> > Is the LC server the "definitive" Z39.50 database? If I suck down a record
> > from there, send it to my database, add more information, etc., etc., how
> > does it get back to the LC? Does it? Would the way I'd contribute be
> > to
12 matches
Mail list logo
