Thursday, August 5, 2004 19:13 CDT Hi, Scott, Sorry, I didn't get your message until just now. I think our ISP must be slow today. Anyway, I spent some time last night and today with your records. I cleaned out the error-causing characters manually last night as a test: for 15 records, it took me 90 minutes (although I did correct a few little MARC errors in the process). As part 2 of my self-imposed testing, I then tried downloading what I'll call (and you'll have to forgive me this jingoism) good MARC records from the NLC database: it took 15 minutes. A much better time ratio. When I've done editing them later tonight, I send you the sets off listserv (as real MARC, they wouldn't display properly anyway: for reasons I've never figured out, sending them as attachments somehow integrates them into the message). Anyway, you'll have: 1. your original set reconverted; and, 2. edited records with the text you wanted integrated into each record (not what I would recommend); and then, 3. edited records with a hyperlink to the same text (what I would and did recommend: I think one of my messages to you might have got lost in the ether). I think that will demonstrate why it is preferable to make a hyperlink. I am sure that with your skill you could even make the link appear like an extension to the Koha page so that users wouldn't even be aware they had left the catalogue. Incidentally, 2 of the NLC records that I used as base copy had hyperlinks already in them to (essentially) PURLs at the Library of Congress. They even have pictures of the book copies, which is kind of neat, too.
The majority of the data I've converted seems to import correctly. I don't know if it was valid MARC, but that has not prevented the rest from importing, which is what I'm concerned about.
No, and I certainly can understand that. If the examples I'm sending back to you seem too pedantically over-corrective, please forgive me: it is just that once one learns the description standards of the International Standard for Bibliographic Description [ISBD], it is very hard to ignore the training and do things otherwise (when I write down book references for friends I am constantly having to correct the perfect ISBD that comes naturally to me but looks weird to non-cataloguers). If you wouldn't mind terribly indulging my curiosity, I would like to see what kind of 'MARC' the records were in originally. Broadening my own horizons if nothing else. TIA.
P.S. You really shouldn't use the $g in 100 in the way that you did. That's not what it was intended for.
I'm a bit new to this; is there a better place to put it? Ideally, I'd like to include as much information as possible, and keep the data normalized, but I get the impression that MARC and Koha weren't designed for that.
Yep, as I wrote in the message that apparently went missing, no ILS was ever really intended to offer as much info as you want, you little keener you! ;-) Again, the records that I'll send later tonight (my time) will show you 2 different ways of including all that info you've compiled with patience and effort: as integrated and as hyperlinked information. I think the latter is preferable, but then again I am biased by training and experience following rules that basically outlaw what you want to do. (In fact, I can remember my cataloguing mentor criticizing a piece of my work once because I offered a one sentence evaluation of the argument of the book in a 520. Even though she appreciated it and didn't argue with my assessment, it wasn't description, as she rightly pointed out, it was commentary.) Anyway, I admire your intentions and if you aren't happy with the suggestions that I made, we can confab some more and find something that fits within the rules and still pleases you. Until later tonight then, Cheers, Steven F. Baljkas library tech at large Koha neophyte Winnipeg, MB, Canada