search

uwlib-cams / MARC2RDA

mapping between MARC21 and RDA-RDF
Creative Commons Zero v1.0 Universal
33 stars 2 forks source link

$2 #347

Open CECSpecialistI opened 2 years ago

CECSpecialistI commented 2 years ago

Numeric and Control Subfields

gerontakos commented 2 years ago

While coding MARC 336, it became apparent we have not decided completely what to do with $2. As I see it, it will not map; rather, it will be a condition for the mapping of other subfields. Our big problem at present seems to be (1) what to do when there is a $2 that does not contain 'rda' and there is a $0 without a $1. However, we have not decided on what property to use when there is a $0 with a $1.

There are some other miniature problems faced by the transformation. One example: there is a record that contains, as complete contents for field 336, $a, $b, and $2; we know the source of the term but, at present, we are not "reconciling" that term in the source vocabulary (in order to fetch the IRI); we may do that in phase 2. So, what do we do with $2 info? We could, for example, create a "note for expression." What I've decided (unilaterally) to do for MARC 336 is output an XML comment that will hopefully remind us later that we have some "reconciliation" efforts to attempt. That comment will be worded one way when it contains 'rda' (without $0 and $1) and another way when $2 does not contain 'rda' (and there is no $0 or $1).

I believe we know what to do when $2 contains 'rda' and there is a $0 or $1 (in that case the value of $0 and $1 become the direct value of the property mapped-to; in the case of MARC 336, that property is rdaed:P20001).

CECSpecialistI commented 2 years ago

LC and RDA source vocabulary codes both contain "rda"

CECSpecialistI commented 2 years ago

Reconcile against RDA list: build lookup table between two sets of vocabularies if it doesn't already exist in registry. TG will stage for reconciliation in the future in XML comments.