Thanks, Bill. What you say about "assumptions" is a good part of what is
motivating me to try to instigate a discussion. As you know, both FRBR
and RDA were developed by the cataloging community with no input from
technologists. There are sweeping statements about FRBR being "more
efficient" th
My guess is that traversing the WEM structure for display of a single
record (e.g., in a librarian's ILS client or what not) will not be a
problem at all, because the volume is so low. In terms of the OPAC
interface itself, well, there are lots and lots of way to denormalize the
data (meaning "cop
On 10/16/13 4:22 PM, Kyle Banerjee wrote:
In some ways, FRBR strikes me as the catalogers' answer to the miserable
seven layer OSI model which often confuses rather than clarifies -- largely
because it doesn't reflect reality very well.
Agreed. I am having trouble seeing FRBR as being benefici
Depends on how many requests the service has to accommodate. Up to a point,
it's no big deal. After a certain point, servicing lots of calls gets
expensive and bang for the buck is brought into question.
My bigger concern would be getting data encoded/structured consistently.
Even though FRBR has
Yes, that's my take as well, but I think it's worth quantifying if
possible. There is the usual trade-off between time and space -- and I'd
be interested in hearing whether anyone here thinks that there is any
concern about traversing the WEM structure for each search and display.
Does it matte
If anyone out there is really making a case for FRBR based on whether or
not it saves a few characters in a database, well, she should give up the
library business and go make money off her time machine . Maybe -- *maybe* --
15 years ago. But I have to say, I'm sitting on 10m records right now, an
For the HathiTrust catalog's 6,046,746 bibs and looking at only the lengths
of the subfields $a and $b in 245s, I get an average length of 62.0
On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 3:24 PM, Kyle Banerjee wrote:
> 245 not including $c, indicators, or delimiters, |h (which occurs before
> |b), |n, |p, with tr
On 10/16/13 12:33 PM, Kyle Banerjee wrote:
BTW, I don't think 240 is a good substitute as the content is very
different than in the regular title. That's where you'll find music, laws,
selections, translations and it's totally littered with subfields. The 70.1
figure from the stripped 245 is prob
BTW, I don't think 240 is a good substitute as the content is very
different than in the regular title. That's where you'll find music, laws,
selections, translations and it's totally littered with subfields. The 70.1
figure from the stripped 245 is probably closer to the mark
IMO, what you stand
aren Coyle
[li...@kcoyle.net]
Sent: Wednesday, October 16, 2013 7:06 PM
To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU
Subject: [CODE4LIB] MARC field lengths
Anybody have data for the average length of specific MARC fields in some
reasonably representative database? I mainly need 100, 245, 6xx.
Thanks,
kc
--
Karen C
245 not including $c, indicators, or delimiters, |h (which occurs before
|b), |n, |p, with trailing slash preceding |c stripped for about 9 million
records for Orbis Cascade collections is 70.1
kyle
On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 12:00 PM, Karen Coyle wrote:
> Thanks, Roy (and others!)
>
> It looks l
Thanks, Roy (and others!)
It looks like the 245 is including the $c - dang! I should have been
more specific. I'm mainly interested in the title, which is $a $b -- I'm
looking at the gains and losses of bytes should one implement FRBR. As a
hedge, could I ask what've you got for the 240? that
Argh. Must learn to write at third grade level
I wanted to say I like breaking up 6XX as Roy has done because 6XX fields
vary in purpose and tag frequency varies considerably.
On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 11:08 AM, Kyle Banerjee wrote:
> This squares with what I'm seeing. Data for all holdings o
This squares with what I'm seeing. Data for all holdings of the Orbis
Cascade Alliance is:
100: 30.1
245: 114.1
6XX: 36.1
My values include indicators (2 characters) as well as any delimiters but
not the tag number itself. I breaking up 6XX up as Roy has as 6XX's are far
from created equal and fr
I don't even have to fire it up. That's a statistic that we generate
quarterly (albeit via Hadoop). Here you go:
100 - 30.3
245 - 103.1
600 - 41
610 - 48.8
611 - 61.4
630 - 40.8
648 - 23.8
650 - 35.1
651 - 39.6
653 - 33.3
654 - 38.1
655 - 22.5
656 - 30.6
657 - 27.4
658 - 30.7
662 - 41.7
Roy
On
I'm running it against the HathiTrust catalog right now. It'll just take a
while, given that I don't have access to Roy's Hadoop cluster :-)
On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 1:38 PM, Sean Hannan wrote:
> That sounds like a request for Roy to fire up the ole OCLC Hadoop.
>
> -Sean
>
>
>
> On 10/16/13 1:0
That sounds like a request for Roy to fire up the ole OCLC Hadoop.
-Sean
On 10/16/13 1:06 PM, "Karen Coyle" wrote:
>Anybody have data for the average length of specific MARC fields in some
>reasonably representative database? I mainly need 100, 245, 6xx.
>
>Thanks,
>kc
>
>--
>Karen Coyle
>kc
Anybody have data for the average length of specific MARC fields in some
reasonably representative database? I mainly need 100, 245, 6xx.
Thanks,
kc
--
Karen Coyle
kco...@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet
18 matches
Mail list logo
