Re: [VuFind-Tech] VUFIND-167 (RSS Feature is not really RSS)

[Barnett, J. <jef...@ya...>]

Till, you are exactly right on the pros and cons of the two fields, but often there is truly useful info contained in updates, such as the availability of new or corrected metatdata, or change in circulation status.  In the context of being new information _that matches the underlying query_, it seems like as good an organizing tool as any.  Likewise, if 005 is not available 008 0-5 is probably better than nothing.

-----Original Message-----
From: Till Kinstler [mailto:kin...@gm...] 
Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 2010 11:01 AM
To: vuf...@li...
Subject: Re: [VuFind-Tech] VUFIND-167 (RSS Feature is not really RSS)

Barnett, Jeffrey schrieb:

> According to http://www.loc.gov/marc/bibliographic/bd005.html "Field 005 
> should be system generated"

Hmm, 005 seems "semantically wrong" to me, because it holds a timestamp 
of the latest change of a record. We have a similar data field that 
changes often because of catalogers or batch jobs updating a data record 
(but not the item it describes). I don't think that's suitable to detect 
"new items" (and that's what users are more interested in than in 
changes in metadata records, I guess). (BTW: our MARCish exports even 
don't have 005 fields, though I don't claim our MARCish exports are good)...
008 0-5 ("Date entered on file") seems more appropriate for MARC 
records. Though that may have its problems, too: For example in our 
catalogs, data records may be created far before an item is available 
for users...

Till

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Vufind-tech mailing list
Vuf...@li...
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/vufind-tech