Ron Davies wrote:
Has anybody ever seen a MARC record where the order of the field data
wasn't the same as that of the entries in the directory? I'm not
questioning the logic of reading a record using the field lengths and
offsets, just wondering if anybody had ever seen this occur in the wild.
At 16:58 7/05/2005, Andrew Houghton wrote:
The code is off the top of my head and parts have been copied from a
variety of Perl scripts I had hanging around. It isn't tested, but
hopefully a start for your work.
Thanks, Andy, there's a lot there that I can put to good use. Much more
elegant cod
orted directory order so you can output the MARC record with the fields in
the same order as the original. Things are never ideal when you have corrupt
MARC records...
Andy.
-Original Message-
From: Ed Summers [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, May 07, 2005 3:11 PM
To: perl4lib@p
I wondered if any of you had run into similar problems, or if you had
any thoughts on how to tackle this particular issue.
It's ironic that MARC::Record *used* to do what Andrew suggests: using
split() rather than
than substr() with the actual directory lengths. The reason for the
switch was jus
e top of my head and not tested, didn't I? It's
still not test, but the above mistakes were obvious after reading what I sent...
Andy.
-Original Message-
From: Houghton,Andrew [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, May 07, 2005 10:58 AM
To: perl4lib@perl.org
Subject: RE: Cor
have been copied from a variety of
Perl scripts I had hanging around. It isn't tested, but hopefully a start for
your work.
Andy.
-Original Message-
From: Ron Davies [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, May 07, 2005 6:14 AM
To: perl4lib@perl.org
Subject: Corrupt MARC records
I ha
I have been having some problems with a client's catalogue that contains
quite a few corrupt MARC records. These are for the most part records that
have been kicking around since as long ago as 1965, and that have been
transferred between various systems and converted between different fo
