Closed CaptSolo closed 3 years ago
Example data file attached: lnc10-greek_gods.txt
A "quick fix" that worked for me was to change https://github.com/scriptotek/mc2skos/blob/master/mc2skos/record.py#L212 to:
elif sf.get('code') == '0' or sf.get('code') == '1':
Indeed! mc2skos was created before $1
was introduced, but I agree it should be supported as well.
Out of curiosity though, would you mind sharing your reasoning for using $1
instead of $0
with LCSH? I haven't followed the $0 / $1 discussions very closely, but my understanding is that $0
should be used with traditional authority record URIs like LCSH, while $1
is to be used with URIs that focus on the RWO the record is about.
Out of curiosity though, would you mind sharing your reasoning for using
$1
instead of$0
with LCSH? I haven't followed the $0 / $1 discussions very closely, but my understanding is that$0
should be used with traditional authority record URIs like LCSH, while$1
is to be used with URIs that focus on the RWO the record is about.
Thanks for the link to $0 / $1 discussions. It appears that in this case we should be using $0
.
A reason why our data uses $1
instead of $0
could be because MARC21 documentation for 7XX fields mentions URIs for subfield $1
but does not mention them for $0
("Authority record control number or standard number").
That discussion aside, mc2skos should support $1, so I cherry-picked ae400400d29ae1f2a55b73e2334e17b8347a14d8 from #69 :)
Thank you!
Would it be possible to export relations based on 7XX subfield $1 ?
We are using it to link our authority records to LCSH and subfield $1 looked like a good choice where to record LCSH URI. Unfortunately, mc2skos currently does not handle URIs in this subfield.
Example data: