Hi Alexandre and Ferran! It is always nice t have the librarian point of view!
On 27 Mar 2014, at 16:43, Ferran Jorba <[email protected]> wrote: > Hello Alexander, Esteban et al, > > Alexander Wagner <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> On 27.03.2014 15:38, Esteban Gabancho wrote: >> >>> I think the second solution is the closest one to reality, the `None` >>> express that the record doesn’t have a first author. And I also think >>> that we could apply this solution for other cases where we have this >>> kind of situation (like with the `110__` and `710__`). >>> >>> What do you think? >> >> If I may: as a librarian you have a 100. You may not have a 700, but >> in case you have only one author it is 100 by definition. > > [to the non librarians in the crowd; Alexander knows it already] > > Or a 110, or a 111, I'd like to remind. An author is not only a 100 > (personal author), but it may be a corporate one (110) or a conference > (111). And please, don't forget that any of those tags may have > arbitrary values as indicators. I know we should not have 700 without 100, but strange things might happen and I was looking for I way to make this visible somehow. Maybe this should be handled by record validation + BibCheck? I don’t know. Don’t worry Ferran, I was using the authors 100 vs 700 as an example, but it is the same case for other fields where you want to do aggregations like this one. About the indicators, don’t worry either we take good care of them, if needed, you can make the distinction between 1001_ and 100__ (I don’t know if this is even correct, it is just an example). Cheers, -- Esteban J. G. Gabancho
