|010||__ |a 2012352243|
|020||__ |a 9788179171615 (hb)|
|020||__ |z 9788179171623 (pb)|
|025||__ |a I-H-2012-352243; 21-92|
|037||__ |b Library of Congress -- New Delhi Overseas Office|
|040||__ |a DLC |b eng |c DLC |e rda |d DLC|
|041||1_ |a hin |h hin |h nep|
|042||__ |a lcode |a pcc|
|043||__ |a a-np---|
|050||00 |a DS495.6 |b .P67 2011|
|100||0_ |a Pracaṇḍa, |d 1944- |e interviewee.|
|240||10 |a Interviews. |k Selections|
|245||10 |a Evaresṭa para Lāla jhaṇḍā : |b Nepāla ke Māovādī netā Pracaṇḍa se bātacīta / |c sampādaka Ānanda Svarūpa Varmā.|
|264||_1 |a Dillī : |b Grantha Śilpī (Iṇḍiyā) Prāiveṭa Limiṭeḍa, |c 2011.|
|300||__ |a 357 pages ; |c 22 cm|
|336||__ |a text |2 rdacontent|
|337||__ |a unmediated |2 rdamedia|
|338||__ |a volume |2 rdacarrier|
|520||__ |a Collection of interviews with Pracanda, born 1944, Nepali politician and chairman of the Nepāla Kamyunishṭa Pārṭī (Māovādī) on the current political scene, Maoist movement, civil war, and insurgency in Nepal.|
|546||__ |a In Hindi; includes articles translated from English and Nepali.|
|600||00 |a Pracaṇḍa, |d 1944- |v Interviews.|
|650||_0 |a Politicians |z Nepal |v Interviews.|
|610||20 |a Nepāla Kamyunishṭa Pārṭī (Māovādī) |v Interviews.|
|651||_0 |a Nepal |x Politics and government |y 1990-|
|651||_0 |a Nepal |x History |y Civil War, 1996-2006.|
|650||_0 |a Insurgency |z Nepal|
I’ve been working with the Solarized color theme in my Emacs for a while. The homebrew recipe for Emacs has an option to pull in a patch which corrects the Cocoa port for Emacs to handle srgb colors correctly. But for the longest time I couldn’t get the colors to exactly line up to the references.
But I finally figured out that the theme was expecting a variable to be set:
(setq solarized-broken-srgb nil)
From the customize information:
Emacs bug #8402 results in incorrect color handling on Macs. If this is t (the default on Macs), Solarized works around it with alternative colors. However, these colors are not totally portable, so you may be able to edit the “Gen RGB” column in solarized-definitions.el to improve them further.
The gotcha is that if you set this through customize, generally the default custom.el loads after init.el with a lightly managed Emacs. So if you thought you were setting the variable in customize and it would work, you are wrong, since normally themes are loaded through your init.el, either through a separate library or directly in mine.
So for me to load solarized with correct srbg support:
(setq solarized-broken-srgb nil) (load-theme 'solarized-dark t)
AP journalist Brett Zongker has brought to our attention that the World Digital Library (WDL) actively continues to expand. With the latest additions of manuscripts from the Walters Art Museum in Baltimore, the collection has surpassed the milestone of 10,000 digital items.
The reason we take special note of the WDL—that is, besides how cool it is!— is that DDC is part of the WDL metadata. Every item is assigned at least one three-digit Dewey number, and while the numbers are hidden, the captions from the Dewey summaries appear as topics—in seven languages. For details, see this presentation.
Here are five amazing things to knock your socks off this week:
- Did you ever see an RFID book sorting system in action? Here is the one used at the Central location of The Seattle Public Library as well as some stats and information.
- Ian Matzen compiled some information on describing digital video which is always a challenge.
- John Horodyski interviews Ian Matzen on the SJSU SLIS siteregarding job…
The latest book on RDA has landed on my desk and the details as follows:
Maxwell’s handbook for RDA: explaining and illustrating RDA: Resource Description and Access using MARC21 / Robert L. Maxwell. London: Facet Publishing, 2014. x, 900 pages. ISBN: 9781856048323
If anyone is interested in writing a review of between 300 and 400 words for Catalogue & index, or if you require any further information about the book, please contact me:
Neil Nicholson, Book Reviews Editor, Catalogue & index
OCLC continues to update the WorldCat knowledge base by adding new providers, collections and enhancements. Highlights for February include the addition of new collections from Credo Reference, ebrary, Highwire Press, JSTOR, Ovid, Taylor & Francis, and Wiley and the discontinuation of one collection from Directory of Open Access Journals, seven collections from Edinburgh University Press, fifty-two collections from Highwire Press, and two collections from Ovid.
Ukraine has been on the front page of newspapers around the world; history is being made there. Some general history numbers for Ukraine from 1855 to present can be found already built in WebDewey:
How were these numbers built? The basic number for history of Ukraine has two add footnotes:
*Add as instructed under 930-990
†Add historical periods as instructed under 947.5-947.9
At 930-990 History of specific continents, countries, localities; extraterrestrial worlds is the basic instruction for building history numbers: "Add to base number 9 notation T2--3-T2--9 from Table 2, e.g., general history of Europe 940, of England 942, of Norfolk, England 942.61; then add further . . . . "
Notation from Table 2 for Ukraine is T2—477 Ukraine.
Notation for historical periods is added according to the instructions at 947.5-947.9
European countries of former Soviet Union other than Russia; Caucasus area of Russia:
"Except for modifications shown under specific entries, add to each subdivision identified by † as follows. . . . " What follows is a detailed history period table, including, e.g.,
0841 1917-1940. Hence the number 947.70841 Ukraine—1917-1940 can be built (base number 9 plus T2—477 as instructed at 930-990 plus 0841 1917-1940 as instructed at 947.5-947.9).
An example of a work classed in 947.70841 Ukraine—1917-1940 is The Holodomor Reader: A Sourcebook on the Famine of 1932-1933 in Ukraine. An example of a work classed in 947.70854 Ukraine--Periods of I͡U. V. Andropov, K. U. Chernenko, and Mikhail Sergeevich Gorbachev, 1982-1991 is Ukraine: Perestroika to Independence. The number was built with base number 9 plus T2—477 as instructed at 930-990 plus 0854 as instructed at 947.5-947.9.947.5-947.9.
Examples of works classed in 947.7086 Ukraine--1991- are Ukraine on its Meandering Path between East and West and Ukraine's Orange Revolution.
Some of you may be interested in this recent update on BIBFRAME, the Library of Congress Bibliographic Framework Initiative.
If you don’t have time to listen to all four speakers I would draw your attention in particular to Eric Miller‘s part of the talk entitled, “An Introduction to BIBFRAME Profiles and Supporting Editors,” which starts at about 40:45.
I’m happy to report that I finally completed work on the latest MarcEdit update. This change provides updates specifically to the RDA Helper and MarcEdit’s implementation/interaction with the OCLC WorldCat Metadata API. The full list of changes can be found below.
If you have MarcEdit, you can download the program via the automated update tool, or you can download directly from:
Chris Newman, who devised it, introduces a new video on our Youtube channel, intended to introduce our users to our e-book collection (make the most of it while it’s available as it will soon be superseded as our collection and catalogues develop) …
It is scarcely Alfred Hitchcock: it lacks the suspense somehow. In fact, the new video we have created sets out to avoid suspense: it is deliberately carefully paced and instructional in tone. The subject of the video is e-books and it is simply an explanation of how to get started in enjoying the varied e-book service provided by the City of London Libraries.
Our hope is that people less familiar with these kinds of resources will be encouraged to put a toe in the water and try out the service. We feel that the real challenge is to try to engage with those who might be less likely to experiment with newer formats and in that way promote a much-improved take-up of the service.
Have a look at the video and let us have your feedback.
Since OCLC made their Metadata APIs available, I’ve spent a good deal of time putting them through their paces and looking for use cases that these particular API might solve, and if/how MarcEdit might be an appropriate platform to take advantage of some of this new functionality. Looking over the new Metadata API, it’s pretty easy to see where the focus was on – providing some capacity to have read/write access to the WorldCat database, primarily the global and local bibliographic data. In addition, the API provided the ability to set institutional holdings on records, though not work with Local Holdings Records.
For that reason, the first round of MarcEdit development utilizing these API was focused primarily on working with the master bibliographic and institutional holdings records. These are two areas where I tend to receive regular queries from users in the mist of reclamation projects or weeding projects and needing to make changes to hundreds or thousands of records in the WorldCat database. The new APIs allowed me to provide an answer to the two most common questions: 1) Can I batch update/delete holdings on a particular OCLC records and 2) can I batch upload records to OCLC. While I’d definitely argue (and I think OCLC probably would agree) that these APIs are not designed to be used with batch operations in mind (i.e., they are slow) – they finally offered a way to communicate with the WorldCat database in real-time…and regardless of performance, this feels/is a big win for libraries that choose to work with OCLC. If you are interested in how this initial work was implemented, you can read about it here: http://blog.reeset.net/archives/1245
After releasing the first MarcEdit builds and making subsequent refinements to the integration work, I’ve had the opportunity to speak with more OCLC WMS users and individuals that make use of the Local Bibliographic Data files and decided that it was time to start working on adding support for this type of data.
The challenge with working with Local Bibliographic Data records is that there is no way (at least through the API) to know if a record has a local bibliographic record attached, without multiple queries and making a set of special calls to the API about a specific OCLC number. This means that for all intensive purposes, the process of working with local bibliographic data in MarcEdit assumes one of two things:
Secondly, I’ve tried to integrate this new functionality into the existing tools developed for use with the other OCLC Metadata APIs. So for example, users looking to query a set of records and retrieve the attached local bibliographic records now will see a new option on the OCLC Search box that denotes if the master or local bibliographic record should be extracted.
The problem, is at this point, MarcEdit doesn’t know if a local bibliographic record actually exists. Certainly, the tool could pre-query every oclc number returned as part of a search, but that approach exponentially increases the back and forth communication between MarcEdit and OCLC via the API, and remember, this isn’t an API that feels designed for batch operations. So, rather than query, MarcEdit provides an option to download the local bibliographic record if it is present. If this checkbox isn’t selected, the program will download the master bibliographic record for edit. For users looking to create a local bibliographic record, the process is the same. Local bibliographic records must be attached to a master OCLC number – so a user would query a record, check to download the local bibliographic record, and then attempt the download.
When downloading a local bibliographic file, MarcEdit will prompt users, asking if the tool should automatically generate a local bibliographic file for edit in MarcEdit if one doesn’t exist on a master record.
To generate new records, MarcEdit utilizes a new template within the application – local_bib_record_template.mot. The template contains the following data:
=LDR 00000n a2200000 4500
This template looks slightly different than a normal MarcEdit template, in that it includes a number of data points that MarcEdit will automatically generate as part of the record generation process. This is necessary because specific data must be present in order for a local bibliographic record to be valid. For example, a local bibliographic record must have the OCLC number that it’s attached to – data that is found in the 004. The 935 represents a local system generated number, a number MarcEdit generates as a timestamp indicating record creating time, and finally, the 940 includes the organizational code, or the code that normally would appear in the 040 of a bibliographic record. This information is stored and used as part of the API profile, so MarcEdit includes that data in the record generation process.
A local bibliographic record is in many ways like the master bibliographic record, just with data only applicable to an institution. OCLC has a set of documentation around what kinds of data can be stored in these records. Using a test record in WorldCat, I extracted the following example:
In this record, the data breaks down in the following way:
As one can see, a local bibliographic record can be fairly brief (or verbose depending on the notes added to the record).
To update/create/delete a local bibliographic holdings file (single or batch) – a user would start with a local bibliographic record. Even delete operations require the record – you cannot just pass the lbd a control number or list of oclc numbers – at least at this point. The API requires the record to be sent through the service as a type of validation.
Updating this data requires using the Add/Delete/Update Local Bibliographic Data option:
Selecting this option will open the following window:
When dealing with Local Bibliographic data, the option will be selected, and the option to delete those records is also presented. Users not working with local bibliographic data will see the same dialog, but the Process as Local Bibliographic Records option will be left unchecked and the Delete Records option will not be visible. At this point, users can process their records, and MarcEdit will return the response codes provided by the API to determine if the updates were successful or not.
My guess is, that like the first pass through the API, the use of these methods and tools that make use of them will be refined with time and use, but I think that they provide a good start. Of course, at this point, I’ve reached the limit in terms of functionality that the Metadata API provides. In looking at this toolset, it’s pretty clear that at this point, these API were primarily envisioned for individual, real-time editing of the WorldCat database. I have a feeling that the batch holdings tools, and now the ability to upload bibliographic and local bibliographic data in batches probably fall outside of the identified use cases when OCLC first released these to the public. But they work, though a little slowly, and provide some capacity to work directly with the WorldCat database. At the same time, the API is limited and missing key features that folks are currently asking for – most notably the ability to work with local holdings data, the ability to validate records, and a better process for search and discovery (as the present Search API are woefully inadequate for nearly any, but for the most vanilla uses). Hopefully, by doing some simple integration work in MarcEdit and providing some useful tools around the Metadata API, it can provide a catalysis for additional work, additional functionality, and additional innovation on the side of OCLC – and continue to push the cooperative to provide more transparent and deeper access to the WorldCat resources and holdings.
Finally, the functions discussed here will be made available for download on March 2.
Here are more than 5 things for your Thursday:
- Want to view a fascinating documentary on National Geographic archivist Bill Bonner? This seems like a dreamy job, white gloves and all…
- Metadata Matters asks us why are we waiting for the ILS to change?
- This seems hard to manage, but intriguing. North Carolina State University Libraries are now lending Google Glass.
- Do you have 164 minutes? Read…
authorized access point
“heading” reflects outmoded ‘catalog-card-speak’
author, composer, artist, etc.
preferred title and, if appropriate, the authorized access point for the creator
“main entry” reflects outmoded ‘catalog-card-speak’, related to cards in a file cabinet
Two RDA counterparts:
1. the preferred title and any differentiating information;
2. a conventional collective title such as “Works”
variant access point
see also reference
authorized access point for related entity
general material designator
1. content type
2. media type
3. carrier type
GMD was an inconsistent presentation of different categories of information
This is not only a change in terminology; ‘sources’ have been expanded from a single source to multiple sources
About two weeks ago I attended an amazing unconference called the Northeast Metadata Specialists Unconference (http://www.blogs.lib.uconn.edu/nemsu). As the name suggests, the focus of this event was to bring together metadata specialists from around the New England area. As an unconference, the event was meant to be an opportunity for people to work together, network, get help with specific questions and generally learn from one another. The benefit for attendees was free registration. Attendees were however responsible for parking, lunch and travel costs. The benefits for organizers was an easy set up of a WordPress site, a Google form for registrations, and getting some awesome colleagues in the area to help out by speaking and reserving a work space in the library. It was a great day where I learned much and got to solve some very concrete problems. The general consensus was to have a repeat of the experience!
The number of unconferences are increasing. NEMSU is one example in New England. Others in this area include Northeast Fedora User Group Unconference, Islandora Camp (regional – NYC), THATCamp New England, Code4Lib regional, or the symposium. Generally these unconferences last a day or perhaps 2 days for something like THATCamp. Registration is typically free. Attendance varies between 30-150 people from around the region. The events begin with a keynote speaker and from that lecture style begins the unstructured events such as lightning talks, sometimes called dork shorts, impromptu seminars, working groups, discussion groups, hands on sessions, or learn a skill session (or sessions on talking, making, playing or teaching). From this description, it is obvious that the format is informal. What attendees bring to the table and their level of engagement determines what they get out of their experience. It is clear from the increase in such events and unconference type sessions at regular conferences (lightning talks) that informal working days are popular.
Does this mean that the conference has seen its day? By conference, I’m thinking in particular of the large conferences such as ALA Annual, ACRL or the Charleston Conference. Typically attendees move from one presentation to another to listen to new ideas, techniques, or theories. I have to say that I enjoy the large conferences. I have to admit however that I reach a saturation point around day 3. Despite that, I continue to frequent large conferences. I would say that conferences continue to play a key role in learning and networking.
It is necessary to be able to go to a venue where you can ask very specific questions about your job or research project. This type of venue might only involve people in a certain area of librarianship. Like NEMSU, it is possible to use all the acronyms and shorthand of the business knowing the people in the room speak your language and get your quirky metadata jokes! This doesn’t discount the conference. It is equally important to attend conferences where you hear big ideas, finished and polished projects, and see new techniques. It is especially important to remove yourself from your quirky colleagues. Once you try to explain or hear about your field from someone outside of that field, then you begin to make strides. Why? It comes down to a change in perspective. I learn this every week in my workshops with curators on metadata. I try to think of aspects that might be difficult for some of the curators I work with in terms of getting content into our digital repository. Sometimes I’m right. Mostly they surprise with new ways of seeing metadata. It is a great and humbling exercise. That is why the conference remains a needed excursion for librarians. It is a place to encounter both the familiar and unfamiliar and learn. So, one should not exclude the other. In fact, the unconference and conference complement each other. Each has a different focus and goal.
So let’s conference and unconference!
|MARC 21 FIELD /|
|110||Main entry—Corporate name||19.2||Creator|
|110||Main entry—Corporate name||19.3||Other Person, Family, or Corporate Body Associated with a Work|
|110||a||Corporate name or jurisdiction name as entry element||6.22||Signatory to a Treaty, etc.|
|110||a||Corporate name or jurisdiction name as entry element||11.2.2||Preferred Name for the Corporate Body|
|110||a||Corporate name or jurisdiction name as entry element||11.2.3||Location of Headquarters, etc.|
|110||a||Corporate name or jurisdiction name as entry element||11.4.3||Date of Establishment|
|110||a||Corporate name or jurisdiction name as entry element||11.4.4||Date of Termination|
|110||a||Corporate name or jurisdiction name as entry element||11.5||Associated Institution|
|110||a||Corporate name or jurisdiction name as entry element||11.7||Other Designation Associated with the Corporate Body|
|110||b||Subordinate unit||11.2.2||Preferred Name for the Corporate Body|
|110||c||Location of meeting||11.3.2||Location of Conference, etc.|
|110||c||Location of meeting||11.5||Associated Institution|
|110||d||Date of meeting or treaty signing||11.4.2||Date of Conference, etc.|
|110||d||Date of meeting or treaty signing||6.4||Date of Work|
|110||e||Relator term||18.5||Relationship Designator|
|110||f||Date of a work||6.10||Date of Expression|
|110||g||Miscellaneous information||11.7||Other Designation Associated with the Corporate Body|
|110||k||Form subheading||6.2.2||Preferred Title for the Work|
|110||l||Language of a work||6.11||Language of Expression|
|110||n||Number of part/section/meeting||6.2.2||Preferred Title for the Work|
|110||n||Number of part/section/meeting||6.3||Form of Work|
|110||n||Number of part/section/meeting||6.4||Date of Work|
|110||n||Number of part/section/meeting||6.5||Place of Origin of the Work|
|110||n||Number of part/section/meeting||6.6||Other Distinguishing Characteristic of the Work|
|110||n||Number of part/section/meeting||11.6||Number of a Conference, etc.|
|110||p||Name of part/section of a work||6.2.2||Preferred Title for the Work|
|110||p||Name of part/section of a work||6.3||Form of Work|
|110||p||Name of part/section of a work||6.4||Date of Work|
|110||p||Name of part/section of a work||6.5||Place of Origin of the Work|
|110||p||Name of part/section of a work||6.6||Other Distinguishing Characteristic of the Work|
|110||t||Title of a work||6.2.2||Preferred Title for the Work|
|110||t||Title of a work||6.3||Form of Work|
|110||t||Title of a work||6.4||Date of Work|
|110||t||Title of a work||6.5||Place of Origin of the Work|
|110||t||Title of a work||6.6||Other Distinguishing Characteristic of the Work|
|110||u||Affiliation||11.9||Address of the Corporate Body|