This isn't an answer to the question, but for some background, I personally heard about this for the first time at the 2014 Evergreen conference. There's no code supporting 1-auth-field/multi-bib-fields today.
As a general question to the catalogers out there, is the 1XX/240 combo the only instance of this that you're aware of, or is there a general pattern of combining the control of multiple bib fields into a single authority field? That might inform the direction taken with any code to address this. TIA, On Thu, Aug 14, 2014 at 12:56 PM, Srey Seng <[email protected]> wrote: > Hello, > > > > *Question*: Has any libraries out there performed bib-auth linking (with > Backstage as a vendor ) and encounter the following scenario in their data? > Any insight into how you approach this situation? > > > > According to Backstage, their system will combine the 1XX and 240 into a > temporary unified heading for matching against LC. In short, we can have > situations where we have a Bib that generated an authority record after > processing, similar to the example bib and auth snippet listed below. > > > > This bib… > > =100 0\$aMartial. > > =240 10$aEpigrammata.$lEnglish & Latin.$kSelections > > Generates this auth… > > =100 0\$aMartial.$tEpigrammata.$kSelections.$lEnglish & Latin > > > > From my understanding of authority control and bib-auth linking in > Evergreen, only a one MARC tag to one MARC tag (and one subfield to one > subfield) type of linking/control is supported. So, running this bib/auth > pair through bib-auth linking does not link these two together. I found > this situation to be one reason why some authority records returned from > backstage does not link to any bib when looking at some stats after > linking. > > > > Thanks again for your help! > > > -- Mike Rylander | Director of Research and Development | Equinox Software, Inc. / Your Library's Guide to Open Source | phone: 1-877-OPEN-ILS (673-6457) | email: [email protected] | web: http://www.esilibrary.com
