OL can and will modify the data (not just automated transformation, but human editing, yeah?) after the original import, right?
I'm personally less interested in seeing the original MARC than I am in seeing OL's current data exported in MARC format. But, sure, if the original MARC is there, then the API should expose it too, why not. I don't know if it needs to be 'normalized', but the API would certainly need to tell the client if the original file is in Marc21 or MarcXML (or neither). Jonathan Karen Coyle wrote: > Quoting Tim Spalding <[email protected]>: > > >> But could you really walk back from OL to MARC? It seems to me >> OL-to-MARC conversion is a lossy, one-way conversion. You could get >> some sort of placeholder record, like libraries sometimes have for a >> pre-publication book, but not much more. >> >> Shall we go through examples, or shall we just agree on that? >> > > I actually did some work in that direction, so it's not just theory. > No, of course not, from OL you do not get a "complete" MARC record. > However... > > 1) where there was a MARC record as input, it is possible to get back > to it. Right now that's only available via the UI, (go to history and > it's usually the bottom item) but with some code it could be available > through the API. (I'd be interested to know if anyone can import into > an ILS from the display of the MARC record which is there. ) There are > disadvantages, in that you wouldn't get any additions/corrections in > the OL record. Doing that latter is feasible, just more code. > > Here's a display: > > LEADER: 00716cam 22001931 4500 > 001 48000245 > 003 DLC > 005 20041206175439.0 > 008 731023s1948 maub 000 1 eng > 010 $a 48000245 > 040 $aDLC$cDLC$dDLC > 050 00 $aPZ3.L81146$bRai$aPS3523.O246 > 100 1 $aLockridge, Ross,$d1914-1948. > 245 10 $aRaintree County$b... which had no boundaries in time and > space, where lurked musical and strange names and mythical and lost > peoples, and which was itself only a name musical and strange. > 260 $aBoston,$bHoughton Mifflin Co.,$c1948. > 300 $axiv, 1066 p.$bmaps.$c22 cm. > 651 0 $aIndiana$xFiction. > 655 7 $aHistorical fiction.$2gsafd > 655 7 $aBildungsromane.$2gsafd > > Here's a raw marc record: > > 00716cam 22001931 > 4500001001300000003000400013005001700017008004100034010001700075040001800092050003300110100003300143245019200176260004200368300003200410651002200442655003100464655002700495 > 48000245 DLC 20041206175439.0 731023s1948 maub 000 1 eng > a 48000245 aDLC cDLC dDLC 00 aPZ3.L81146 bRai aPS3523.O246 1 > aLockridge, Ross, d1914-1948. 10 aRaintree County b... which had no > boundaries in time and space, where lurked musical and strange names and > mythical and lost peoples, and which was itself only a name musical and > strange. aBoston, bHoughton Mifflin Co., c1948. axiv, 1066 > p. bmaps. c22 cm. 0 aIndiana xFiction. 7 aHistorical fiction. 2gsafd > 7 aBildungsromane. 2gsafd > > These are linked from this page: > http://openlibrary.org/books/OL6026352M/Raintree_County?m=history > > 2) I believe that some of the records came in as MARCXML, some as > "binary MARC". So possibly there would need to be cleanup-recreation > so that everything would be in the same format. Not sure, though. > > 3) the input files, including the LC Books files (still missing one > year, 2008 I believe, but up to date with the weekly files since > then), are stored at the Internet Archive. If someone wants to make a > database of MARC records out of those, it should be possible. Some of > the non-LC library sources turned out to produce some pretty error-ful > records (I do not want to name names in public). I would advise > against using those. (Contact me offline) > > Here's where to find them: http://www.archive.org/details/ol_data > > 4) OL does not store data in "library cataloging" format. In > particular, it was decided to reverse the names from last, first to > first last. This isn't reversible, at least not accurately. With code, > one could restore those X00 names, but there would need to be a strong > motivation. I would like to see the LC name authority identifier added > to OL records as just another identifier for names, but I don't think > that's high up on anyone's list. But in general, no, OL is not > producing data that fits into the MARC/AACR bag. > > kc > > >> Tim >> _______________________________________________ >> Ol-tech mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://mail.archive.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ol-tech >> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send email to >> [email protected] >> >> > > > > _______________________________________________ Ol-tech mailing list [email protected] http://mail.archive.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ol-tech To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send email to [email protected]
