It shouldn't really be necessary to have different flavors of MARC for
this. Unlikes other leader positions, Base address of data is NOT
defined to be implementation-specific or implementation-defined. Bytes
12/16 are supposed to contain base address of data, and in this case,
simply appear to be i
It shouldn't really be necessary to have different flavors of MARC for this. Unlikes
other leader positions, Base address of data is NOT defined to be
implementation-specific or implementation-defined. Bytes 12/16 are supposed to contain
base address of data, and in this case, simply appear to b
On Tue, Jan 13, 2004 at 06:17:25PM +0100, Leif Andersson wrote:
> If it is in accordance with a special MARC flavour, then maybe MARC::Record
> should do something to meet this need? But, we do not know that yet.
Yeah, we could have new_from_xxx() for a different MARC flavors I suppose.
It migh
It appears to be deceptive values in leader pos 12-16, which is supposed to point to
the beginning of data.
MARC::Record relies on this value.
I do not know, though, if this is a sign of a different MARC flavour, or if something
bad has happened to the record.
If it is in accordance with a spec
On Tue, Jan 13, 2004 at 10:48:57AM +0200, Christoffer Landtman wrote:
> Any help on the matter is deeply appreciated as I really cannot make
> anything of this, as it was working on my setup, but not on various
> other peoples setups.
Could you send the program as an attachment to me Chistoffer?
Dear all,
I was wondering if there is anyone from the MARC::Record team on this
list who possibly could give some insight in the following matter.
We are using MARC::Record to manipulate MARC records in Emilda [1] and
we have been running into some unexpected problems. The actual
manipulation
