Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Use URIs from 7XX subfield $1 #70

Closed
CaptSolo opened this issue Jun 26, 2020 · 6 comments
Closed

Use URIs from 7XX subfield $1 #70

CaptSolo opened this issue Jun 26, 2020 · 6 comments

Comments

@CaptSolo
Copy link
Contributor

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:

  <datafield tag="750" ind1=" " ind2="0">
    <subfield code="a">Gods, Greek, in art</subfield>
    <subfield code="1">http://id.loc.gov/authorities/subjects/sh85055623</subfield>
    <subfield code="u">http://id.loc.gov/authorities/subjects/sh85055623</subfield>
    <subfield code="2">LCSH</subfield>
    <subfield code="4">N</subfield>
  </datafield>
@CaptSolo
Copy link
Contributor Author

Example data file attached: lnc10-greek_gods.txt

@CaptSolo
Copy link
Contributor Author

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':

@danmichaelo
Copy link
Member

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.

@CaptSolo
Copy link
Contributor Author

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").

@danmichaelo
Copy link
Member

That discussion aside, mc2skos should support $1, so I cherry-picked ae40040 from #69 :)

@CaptSolo
Copy link
Contributor Author

Thank you!

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants