Sounds to me like a new choice with an option for the specified length for one of the choices may be on the horizon ;-)
Jim
On 2/16/2011 10:06 AM, Mitchell, Michael wrote:
>
> John has made my implicit assumptions explicit in his usual cogent manner. I too have rarely seen such ginormous
> fields and was basing my preference on the assumption that the need for intervention would be very infrequent.
>
> Michael Mitchell
>
> Technical Services Librarian
>
> Brazosport College
>
> Lake Jackson, TX 77566
>
> [log in to unmask]
>
> *From:*MarcEdit support in technical and instructional matters [mailto:[log in to unmask]] *On Behalf Of
> *Myers, John F.
> *Sent:* Wednesday, February 16, 2011 8:18 AM
> *To:* [log in to unmask]
> *Subject:* Re: [MARCEDIT-L] MARCEngine Question
>
> I would observe that if the dynamically generated 505 causes the record to go “tilt”, there could be arguments made
> for either approach – an explicit error message or an automated field splitting algorithm.
>
> I have seen one record in my career when a single field was over capacity – still have the printout pinned to my wall.
> (And I never would have found it without the aid of MarcEdit. –Thanks again Terry!) The original field went on for
> over a page. Any field with that much text in it is going to be one hot mess. An argument could be made that this
> warrants direct cataloger intervention to rectify. Conversely, an argument could be made that arbitrary decisions
> regarding automated splitting of the field will not significantly degrade an already bad situation.
>
> I imagine the deciding factor might be the anticipated scale of the problem within the prospective files. If this will
> only come up occasionally, then the hand-crafted corrections afforded by an error message might be a viable solution.
> If however this comes up frequently, then continual massaging of numerous records in large files may become
> impractical and an automated solution may be preferable.
>
> John F. Myers, Catalog Librarian
>
> Schaffer Library, Union College
>
> 807 Union St.
>
> Schenectady NY 12308
>
> 518-388-6623
>
> [log in to unmask]
>
> Michael Mitchell wrote:
>
> I’d rather have just the explicit error message. The chances of an algorithm splitting the field in a good spot seems
> slim to me. Plus I don’t care for programs that do more than I specifically ask. I expect I’ll be the odd man out on
> this one.
>
> Terry Reesewrote:
>
> I’ve had a question from a user that is generating their records dynamically and then using MarcEdit to process the
> results. The problem is that in generating a 505 statement, the process is creating fields that are much larger than
> legally allowed in MARC.
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
> This message comes to you via MARCEDIT-L, a Listserv(R) list for technical and instructional support in MarcEdit. If
> you wish to communicate directly with the list owners, write to [log in to unmask] To unsubscribe,
> send a message "SIGNOFF MARCEDIT-L" to [log in to unmask]
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
> This message comes to you via MARCEDIT-L, a Listserv(R) list for technical and instructional support in MarcEdit. If
> you wish to communicate directly with the list owners, write to [log in to unmask] To unsubscribe,
> send a message "SIGNOFF MARCEDIT-L" to [log in to unmask]
>
________________________________________________________________________
This message comes to you via MARCEDIT-L, a Listserv(R) list for technical and instructional support in MarcEdit. If you wish to communicate directly with the list owners, write to [log in to unmask] To unsubscribe, send a message "SIGNOFF MARCEDIT-L" to [log in to unmask]
|