We are working on converting some MARC library records to RDF, and looking
at how we handle links to LCSH (id.loc.gov) - and I'm looking for feedback
on how we are proposing to do this...
I'm not 100% confident about the approach, and to some extent I'm trying to
work around the nature of how
yaz-marcdump does a really good job of charset and format conversion for MARC
records, and is blindingly fast.
But yaz-marcdump seems to think there are a lot of separators in the wrong
place and bad indicator data, whether treating the records as UTF-8 or MARC-8.
The leaders in the records
Thanks Tom - very helpful
Perhaps this suggests that rather using an order we should check
combinations while preserving the order of the original 650 field (I assume
this should in theory be correct always - or at least done to the best of
the cataloguers knowledge)?
So for:
650 _0 $$a
*... Creating possibly invalid headings isn't necessarily a problem - as we
won't get a match on id.loc.gov anyway ...
*LCSH headings reflect materials cataloged by LC. You may have materials at
your UK (or Albania, Tunisia, etc.) which were not cataloged yet at LC, thus
nothing
After having done numerous matching and mapping projects, there are some issues
that you will face with your strategy, assuming I understand it correctly.
Trying to match a heading starting at the left most subfield and working
forward will not necessarily produce correct results when matching
Andrew, please see *[YZ]* below
*181 __ $z England and you would NOT find this heading in LCSH. This is
issue one. Unfortunately, LC does not create 181 in LCSH (actually I think
there are some, but not if it’s a name), instead they create a 781 in the
name authority record. *
*[YZ]* MARC/LCSH
Still digesting Andrew's response (thanks Andrew), but
On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 4:17 PM, Ya'aqov Ziso yaaq...@gmail.com wrote:
*Currently under id.loc.gov you will not find name authority records, but
you can find them at viaf.org*.
*[YZ]* viaf.org does not include geographic names. I just
If you look at the fields those names come from, I think they mean
England as a corporation, not England as a place.
Ralph
-Original Message-
From: Code for Libraries [mailto:CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU] On Behalf
Of
Owen Stephens
Sent: Thursday, April 07, 2011 11:28 AM
To:
Actually, it appears to depend on whose Authority record you're looking at.
The Canadians, Australians, and Israelis have it as a CorporateName (110), as
do the French (210 - unimarc); LC and the Germans say it's a Geographic Name.
In the case of LCSH, therefore, it would be a 151.
Ralph, Owen's pointing to a list where corporate (110) and geographic names
(151) are mixed.
Thanks Owen, I haven't seen that the first time. I guess you got that mixed
110/151 when limiting to 'exact name'. Perhaps Andrew has a workaround.
*Ya'aqov*
On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 10:34 AM,
I'm out of my depth here :)
But... this is what I understood Andrew to be saying. In this instance
(?because 'England' is a Name Authority?) rather than create a separate LCSH
authority record for 'England' (as the 151), rather the LCSH subdivision is
recorded in the 781 of the existing Name
Kevin,
England exists as a corporate body and also as a geographic name. BOTH
entities exist in LCSH. This doesn't apply to all geographic names, only to
some.
Andrew pointed us to VIAF, but I expect his algorithm to limit the search
for LCSH. Let's wait for his reply.
*Ya'aqov*
*On Thu, Apr
More confusing yet, if you look at the raw XML for that record (add viaf.xml to
the end of the URI and then view source) you’ll see that the name type is
indeed Geographic.
My boss is puzzled.
Ralph
From: Ya'aqov Ziso [mailto:yaaq...@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, April 07, 2011 11:56
On 4/7/2011 10:46 AM, Houghton,Andrew wrote:
to go to the name authority record 150 England with LCCN n82068148. Currently
under id.loc.gov you will not find name authority records,
If this would change, so name authority record elements used in 6xx
subject cataloging were in id.loc.gov, it
Jonathan, hi and thanks,
1. I believe id.loc.gov includes a list of MARC countries and a list for
geographic areas (based on the geographic names in 151 fields.
2. cataloging rules instruct catalogers to use THOSE very name forms in 151
$a when a subject can be divided (limited) geographically
1. No disagreement, except that some 151 appears in the name file and
some appear in the subject file:
n82068148 008/11=a 008/14=a 151 _ _ $a
England
sh2010015057008/11=a 008/14=b 151 _ _ $a Tabasco
Mountains (Mexico)
2.
That is probably correct. England may appear as both a 110 *and* a 151 because
the 110 signifies the concept for the country entity while the 151 signifies
the concept for the geographic place. A subtle distinction...
Andy.
-Original Message-
From: Code for Libraries
*Andrew, as always, most helpful news, kindest thanks! more [YZ] below:*
*1. No disagreement, except that some 151 appears in the name file and
some appear in the subject file:*
*n82068148 008/11=a 008/14=a 151 _ _ $a
England*
*sh2010015057008/11=a
On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 12:58 PM, Ya'aqov Ziso yaaq...@gmail.com wrote:
1. I believe id.loc.gov includes a list of MARC countries and a list for
geographic areas (based on the geographic names in 151 fields.
2. cataloging rules instruct catalogers to use THOSE very name forms in 151
$a when a
My bad in (2) that should have been 781 and it’s LC’s way to indicate the
geographic form used for a 181 when a heading may be geographically subdivided.
The point is, when you are trying to do authority matching/mapping you have to
match against the 181’s in LCSH *and* the 781’s in NAF. This
On 4/7/2011 1:21 PM, Houghton,Andrew wrote:
That is probably correct. England may appear as both a 110 *and* a 151 because
the 110 signifies the concept for the country entity while the 151 signifies
the concept for the geographic place. A subtle distinction...
This starts getting into
The DPLA listserv is probably too impractical for most of Code4Lib, but Nate
Hill (who's on this list as well) made this contribution there, which I think
deserves attention from library coders here.
On Apr 5, 2011, at 11:15 AM, Nate Hill wrote:
It is awesome that the project Gutenberg stuff
22 matches
Mail list logo
