Hi Thomas and Patrick!
Thank you both for bringing the discussion forward. I must admit that I'm
having some problems following here. I read your mails multiple times, really
trying to understand your demands. After reading this [1], I hope I'm getting
closer.
I just want to sum up what I thin
Hi Thomas and Patrick!
I think the whole problem lies in the limited expressivity of strings. MARCspec
is pretty much close to XPath at its approach, but without regular expressions
and functions like first(), last() etc. But even with XPath it would be pretty
hard to get the character before a
ick Hochstenbach [mailto:patrick.hochstenb...@ugent.be]
> Gesendet: Dienstag, 21. Januar 2014 09:57
> An: Klee, Carsten; v...@gbv.de; librecat-...@mail.librecat.org;
> perl4lib@perl.org
> Betreff: Re: AW: [librecat-dev] A common MARC record path language
>
> Hi Carsten
>
>
Hi Carsten
Excuses for the late reply, it took some while to get the system booted
after winter vacations.
You are right in the discussion about which parts should be specified by a
MARCspec language and which part should be implemented as operations on
nodes found. I gave the examples not as a h
Hi Patrick! Hi everyone!
Thanks for looking into MARCspec. I opened some GitHub issues [1] concerning
your enhancement requests. Let me just give you some thoughts on these:
> - Supporting local defined MARC (sub)fields (e.g. Ex Libris exports
> contain all kind of Z30, CAT , etc fields)
I thi
