The weird looking report results that I mentioned seem to be coming from the bib information. Date1 in each of the records had full years; Date2 had 4 characters (numbers), which appear to represent the month and day information that was expressed in the 264. I would have assumed if the date information in the report was using data from the fixed field that it would have looked the same as what was actually in the fixed field.
[cid:[email protected]]Irene Patrick Library & Information Management Systems Librarian NC Dept. of Natural and Cultural Resources 919.807.7413 | [email protected] 109 E. Jones St. | 4640 Mail Service Center Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-4600 Facebook<http://www.facebook.com/ncghl> Twitter<http://www.twitter.com/ncpedia> YouTube<http://www.youtube.com/user/statelibrarync> Website<https://statelibrary.ncdcr.gov/> Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties. From: Rogan Hamby [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2017 6:55 PM To: Evergreen Discussion Group <[email protected]> Subject: [External] Re: [OPEN-ILS-GENERAL] Publication Year in Reports CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless verified. Send all suspicious email as an attachment to [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>. I can't speak for everyone but I believe that it does. Maybe ... 90% sure. On my phone right now but I'll try to check when I'm near a laptop later. Rogan Hamby Data and Project Analyst Equinox Open Library Initiative phone: 1-877-OPEN-ILS (673-6457) email: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> web: http://EquinoxInitiative.org On Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 6:30 PM, Jason Stephenson <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Is everyone sure that the report is using the 264$c for the publication year? The OPAC uses 008 Date1, and that leads to some weird pub date sorting.
