I thought twice about sending this, mostly from the "should I contribute
more to the signal/noise damage I've created", but wanted to clarify:
* The smiley at the end was intentional and deliberate; without
it, it makes me seem upset. With it, I hoped to express only
that "it wasn't cool" no
On Wed, Nov 19, 2003 at 11:20:41AM -0600, Ed Summers wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 19, 2003 at 11:50:05AM -0500, Morbus Iff wrote:
> > Has anyone encountered targeted spam from perl4lib or oss4lib posts?
> > I've posted numerous times to perl4lib, and once to oss4lib. Just now,
> > I suddenly got a spam for
On Wed, Nov 19, 2003 at 08:57:52AM -0600, Anne Highsmith wrote:
> Yup, looks like it. This is a new one on me, who haven't really studied
> MARC since I escaped from MARBI in 1992. Maybe this is a USMARC->MARC 21
> change, i.e. something that came in with MARC 21? Or was it a change in
> the ANSI o
On Wed, Nov 19, 2003 at 07:43:52AM -0500, Morbus Iff wrote:
> >The OCLC conventions are probably much more widely known than the LC
> >ones simply because most libraries doing copy cataloging use OCLC as
> >their utility.
>
> The LC also uses $ to represent sub-tags (I think that's what
> they're
>Yup, looks like it. This is a new one on me, who haven't really studied
>MARC since I escaped from MARBI in 1992. Maybe this is a USMARC->MARC 21
>change, i.e. something that came in with MARC 21? Or was it a change in
>the ANSI or ISO standards? I don't think lowercase alphabetics were
>valid ind
Yup, looks like it. This is a new one on me, who haven't really studied
MARC since I escaped from MARBI in 1992. Maybe this is a USMARC->MARC 21
change, i.e. something that came in with MARC 21? Or was it a change in
the ANSI or ISO standards? I don't think lowercase alphabetics were
valid indicato
On Wed, Nov 19, 2003 at 09:16:20AM +0100, Tajoli Zeno wrote:
> Hi to all,
>
> At 01.52 19/11/03, 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
On Wed, Nov 19, 2003 at 11:50:05AM -0500, Morbus Iff wrote:
> Has anyone encountered targeted spam from perl4lib or oss4lib posts?
> I've posted numerous times to perl4lib, and once to oss4lib. Just now,
> I suddenly got a spam for "BowkerLink", which submits to Ulrich's
> Periodicals Directory, so
On Wed, Nov 19, 2003 at 05:00:53PM +, Ben Soares wrote:
> update_leader() used to be really handy when you read in a MARC::Record from
> somewhere, changed or added a few fields. Then to update the leader to
> reflect those changes you only had to call $record->update_leader() and not
> hav
>update_leader() used to be really handy when you read in a MARC::Record from
>somewhere, changed or added a few fields. Then to update the leader to
>reflect those changes you only had to call $record->update_leader() and not
>have to do any tedious and possibly incorrect calculations yourself to
Hello,
MARC::Record::leader() doesn't have the same function as update_leader().
leader() seems to be a setter/getter method, but to set you need to know
what you're setting to beforehand.
update_leader() used to be really handy when you read in a MARC::Record from
somewhere, changed or added
Has anyone encountered targeted spam from perl4lib or oss4lib posts?
I've posted numerous times to perl4lib, and once to oss4lib. Just now,
I suddenly got a spam for "BowkerLink", which submits to Ulrich's
Periodicals Directory, something right in line with my earlier
questions. Besides friends/IM,
On Wed, Nov 19, 2003 at 04:22:41PM +, Ben Soares wrote:
> I see there's an update_leader() method in MARC::File::USMARC, but I can't
> work out how you're supposed to use it. At first glance at the code, it
> looks like update_leader() and _build_tag_directory() have fallen out of
> MARC::R
Hi all,
Whatever happened to the update_leader() method in MARC::Record?
I see there's an update_leader() method in MARC::File::USMARC, but I can't
work out how you're supposed to use it. At first glance at the code, it
looks like update_leader() and _build_tag_directory() have fallen out of
On Wed, Nov 19, 2003 at 10:29:42AM +, Ben Soares wrote:
> I haven't used it so can't really say anything from experience, but it's
> developed on behalf of the British Library so it's from a highly credible
> source.
Thanks for the pointer to USEMARCON. I hadn't heard about it, and the topic
> Perhaps, but we've yet to have anyone complain :)
That's pretty much the strategy we've had on features in MARC::Record,
and my strategy for any module: If someone needs it, I'll put it in. If
they don't, I won't.
xoa
--
Andy Lester => [EMAIL PROTECTED] => www.petdance.com => AIM:petdance
This sounds more like a specification than a feature and so should probably
be added?
Ben
On Wed, 19 November, 2003 15:14, Ed Summers wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 19, 2003 at 09:43:51AM -0500, Morbus Iff wrote:
> > if ( $indicator !~ /^[0-9 ]$/ ) {
>
> Perhaps, but we've yet to have anyone complain :)
On Wed, Nov 19, 2003 at 09:43:51AM -0500, Morbus Iff wrote:
> if ( $indicator !~ /^[0-9 ]$/ ) {
Perhaps, but we've yet to have anyone complain :) I guess it would
be ok to loosen this behavior if you have a pressing need for it. But I would
steer away from adding features just for the sake of add
On Wed, Nov 19, 2003 at 07:43:52AM -0500, Morbus Iff wrote:
> The LC also uses $ to represent sub-tags (I think that's what
> they're called; just woke up... the $a/$b things). But, I
> seem to see _a and _b more often. Which is more prevalent?
LC's MARCMaker/MARCBreaker utilities use $ if I remem
Anne L. Highsmith says:
>Quoting from "MARC 21 Specifications for Record Structure,
>Character Sets, and Exchange Media RECORD STRUCTURE",
>http://www.loc.gov/marc/specifications/specrecstruc.html#varifields
>"Indicators may be any ASCII lowercase alphabetic, numeric, or blank"
So, if that's the ca
Quoting from "MARC 21 Specifications for Record Structure,
Character Sets, and Exchange Media
RECORD STRUCTURE",
http://www.loc.gov/marc/specifications/specrecstruc.html#varifields
"Indicators may be any ASCII lowercase alphabetic, numeric, or blank"
Period. As mentioned by others, the '#' or '
On Tue, Nov 18, 2003 at 10:50:22PM -0600, Chuck Bearden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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::Fie
>The OCLC conventions are probably much more widely known than the LC
>ones simply because most libraries doing copy cataloging use OCLC as
>their utility.
The LC also uses $ to represent sub-tags (I think that's what
they're called; just woke up... the $a/$b things). But, I
seem to see _a and _b
On Wed, 19 November, 2003 08:16, Tajoli Zeno wrote:
>
> In fact I don't subscribe this type of changes.
> Why ?
> Because they hard coded in the module the USMARC/MARC21 standard.
>
> There different flouvers of MARC, the Library of Congress mantains USMARC
> .
> For example I use Unimarc, mantaine
Hi to all,
At 01.52 19/11/03, Morbus Iff wrote:
My assumption at the time was that the above MARC::Record methods also
applied to MARC::Field objects, allowing creations like this:
my $author = MARC::Field->new(
'100',1,'',
a => 'Logan, Robert K.',
d => '1939-'
);
25 matches
Mail list logo
