Hi Lebbeous and David, Thanks for your help with predicting a pattern and issuance for a weekly. What worked for Lebbeous worked for us. We have one remark though concerning our 2nd try. You say the subfields $i and $j are reversed from what was defined in the pattern code. Since we only used the wizards, could this also be a bug?
Regards, Marjolein -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Lebbeous Fogle-Weekley Sent: maandag 21 februari 2011 23:33 To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [OPEN-ILS-GENERAL] Weekly serials in 2.0 On 02/21/2011 03:10 AM, Marjolein Kremer wrote: Hello Marjolein, I came up with a pattern code and a holding code that may work for you. For my test I wanted a weekly serial appearing every Monday. Each issue will have volume and number enumeration captions, as well as year, month, and date chronological captions. I used the last Monday in December 2010 for my "dummy" issue, so the predictions start with the first Monday in 2011. ["2","0","8","1","a","vol","b","no","u","52","v","r","i","(year)","j","(month)","k","(day)","w","w"] ["4","1","8","1","a","10","b","52","i",2010,"j",12,"k",27] If the above codes and variations work for you too, then great, although I can see how there may be a problem if some of the below don't work. I'll comment on what I see in your examples below. > Pattern code for: > vol., no.52,[...]year,month,week[...] weekly (2nd try) > ["2","0","8","1","a","vol","b","nr","u","52","v","r","i","(year)","j","(month)","k","(week)","w","w"] > Holding code: > ["4","1","8","1","a","10","b","52","i",52,"j",2010] > (does not work) > The above doesn't work because the holding code's subfield $i and $j are reversed from what you was defined in the pattern code. $i should have been 2010 and $j should have been 52 to correspond to year and month, respectively. There also needs to be a $k in the holding code since there is one in the pattern code. > Pattern code for: > no., [...] year, week (3rd try) > ["1","0","8","1","a","no","i","(year)","j","(week)","w","w"] > Holding code: > ["4","1","8","1","a","52","i",2010,"j",51] > Indeed, the predictions from the above example are very bizarre. I get 'no53(2011:48)' 'no54(2012:45)' 'no55(2013:42)' 'no56(2014:39)' and so on. That's presumably a bug unless there's some MFHD subtlety I can't get my head around. Perhaps David would be kind enough to chime in again on this one? > Pattern code for: > vol., no. 52[...], week, year [...] weekly (4th try) > ["2","0","8","1","a","vol","b","no","u","52","v","c","i","(week)","j","(year)","w","w"] > Holding code: > ["4","1","8","1","a","10","b","52","i",52,"j",2010] > The above example can't work because the chronology unit in subfield $i is "smaller" than the one follows in subfield $j. Although the pattern code wizard has a textual warning against doing this, I recognize that it would be better if it actually prevented the user from making this mistake. > Pattern code for: > vol., year, week (5th try) > ["2","0","8","1","a","vol","i","(year)","j","(week)","w","w"] > Holding code: > ["4","1","8","1","a","10","i",2010,"j",52] > The above example exhibits similarly unexpected predictions as the one two examples higher, for which I'm soliciting David's help. I'm not sure what's happening at this time. > We always delete the previous issuance, so that should not be the problem. Good! You were right to do this. > We hope you can help. > > Marjolein > I hope this has been at least some help. Perhaps my example at the beginning of this e-mail will give you something to work with. I will update the list with any progress on tracking down the problem with the patterns that have me confused now. Thanks! -- Lebbeous
