On Thursday, October 14, 2004 11:30 AM, Jackie Shieh wrote:
>BTW, did the checking take into an account that when 260$c has
>[19--?] that the value in 008/007-10 should be 19uu?
This is not currently accounted for in my programming, since it did not
appear in any of the records I used for testing.
Bryan,
This is FANTASTIC!
BTW, did the checking take into an account that when 260$c has
[19--?] that the value in 008/007-10 should be 19uu?
--Jackie
|Jackie Shieh
|Special Projects & Collections Team
|Harlan Hatcher Graduate Library
|University of Michigan
|920 North University
|Ann Arbor, MI
On Wed, Oct 13, 2004 at 09:55:19AM -0500, Bryan Baldus wrote:
> What you describe seems to be what MARC::Lint does. MARC::Errorchecks is
> more of a check of the record data against AACR2 cataloging rules (and
> LCRIs), in addition to MARC21 rules, just as MARC::Lintadditions does. The
> difference
On Tuesday, October 12, 2004 8:51 AM, Ron Diener wrote:
>A brief suggestion: if the intent is to test the format of MARC records for
proper tags, indicators and subfields,
>then a more accurate name might be "TestMARC" or "CheckMARC" or
"TestFormat" or "CheckFormat."
What you describe seems to be
A brief suggestion: if the intent is to test the format of MARC records for proper
tags, indicators and subfields, then a more accurate name might be "TestMARC" or
"CheckMARC" or "TestFormat" or "CheckFormat."
Ronald E. Diener
919 715-4855
North Carolina Supreme Court Library
Justice Building, 2
