<!DOCTYPE html>
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
Mike,<br>
<br>
A new column is what I was thinking. I figured that I'd break
something by converting the string column into an integer. Though, I
didn't think it would have necessitated a new metabib field
definition, because the results of the existing definition could be
converted to numeric closer to the "Simple Record Extracts" end of
the chain? Perhaps introduce the new column in one of the views up
the DB view chain somewhere? Still referencing the original
extraction def?<br>
<br>
New column name: "Publication Year (numeric normalized)"<br>
pubyear_int<br>
<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">-Blake-
Conducting Magic
Will consume any data format
MOBIUS
</pre>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 2/19/2024 11:06 AM, Mike Rylander
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAP6W9vQXWsVUWbGmneFh3QLuK=UpHvcx1fFW6AGtWasCmNhksA@mail.gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div dir="ltr">Hrm... I traced back the date1 record attribute
defintion, actually, rather than the pubdate metabib field.
It's important to note that record attributes and metabib fields
have /very/ different use cases, ingest performance profiles,
and configuration shapes. What's most important here is that
metabib fields are primarily meant to support search, and record
attributes are primarily meant to support discrete value display
and sorting. We should try to use a single value (multi=false
in the config table) record attribute here, rather than a
metabib field.
<div><br>
</div>
<div>The drawback with Date1 (as in, the data coming from the
008) is that if you have really thin records the 008 may not
exist. However I don't think the risk is really high there --
the record attribute version of pubdate comes from the 008 as
well, and that is what we use as the data for the publication
date sort axis. Oh! And, looking closer, the pubdate
attribute uses the "Number or NULL Normalize" index normalizer
(id=18), which is the second half of what I described before
-- I'd just forgotten it existed. Adding index normalizer 19
in a position before number-or-null, and then setting up the
view stack to use that record attribute, could be all that's
needed.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>So, I think the record attribute version of pubdate is
actually the best data source.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>One thing to consider is existing uses of whatever extant
field we end up wanting to make use of. So, the Real Plan,
IMO should do all that -^ as a /new/ record attribute rather
than hijacking an existing one, nor should it use an existing
metabib field (recall, those are about searching rather
exposing data for other things to use), and have it land in a
completely new column on the Simple Record Extracts
materialized view. Then there's no chance of breaking
existing reports with a column datatype change.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Thoughts on that?</div>
<div><br clear="all">
<div>
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_signature"
data-smartmail="gmail_signature">
<div dir="ltr">--<br>
Mike Rylander<br>
Research and Development Manager<br>
Equinox Open Library Initiative<br>
1-877-OPEN-ILS (673-6457)<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:miker@equinoxOLI.org">miker@equinoxOLI.org</a><br>
<a href="https://equinoxOLI.org" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://equinoxOLI.org</a><br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<br>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Fri, Feb 16, 2024 at
2:23 PM Blake Graham-Henderson <<a
href="mailto:blake@mobiusconsortium.org"
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">blake@mobiusconsortium.org</a>>
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote"
style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">All,<br>
<br>
Thanks for your considerate responses. What Mike said is the
conclusion <br>
I had come to, and I was wondering if anyone else needs the
publication <br>
year to be an actual number so that the reporter can do things
like <br>
average,min,max,etc. From the sounds of it, no one is
currently using <br>
the Evergreen reporter to produce such a thing (I don't see
how you <br>
could). I suppose no one is using an external program to make
it happen <br>
(to meet collection reporting needs from the higher-ups)?<br>
<br>
I agree with Mike, in that the best place to get the
publication year <br>
(right now) is the Simple Record Extracts, because it hunts it
down from <br>
several places in the bib record. Walking it backwards:<br>
<br>
reporter.materialized_simple_record ->
reporter.old_super_simple_record <br>
-> metabib.wide_display_entry ->
metabib.compressed_display_entry -> <br>
metabib.flat_display_entry -> metabib.display_entry<br>
<br>
Which is a trigger-created-table based upon the index
definition found <br>
in config.metabib_field<br>
<br>
one of those views is hardcoded to expect "pubdate" to exist
in the <br>
metabib_field definitions. Which exists with stock Evergreen <br>
definitions. Which is:<br>
<br>
"//mods33:mods/mods33:originInfo//mods33:dateIssued[@encoding="marc"]|//mods33:mods/mods33:originInfo//mods33:dateIssued[1]"<br>
<br>
Decoding that is fun. Suffice it to say: the pubyear can come
from <br>
several places in the record, and I like that better than only
looking <br>
in one place.<br>
<br>
So, in conclusion, if a patch were written, I think it would
be smart to <br>
piggy back on this logic. It might be fairly straightforward
to get the <br>
first occurrence from the JSON string and cast it to an
integer <br>
(stripping out non-numeric characters first). That's where my
thoughts <br>
are right now. I don't think we're going to be writing the
patch anytime <br>
soon, just thinking through it with everyone.<br>
<br>
If everyone agrees that this is something that Evergreen
should have, <br>
and we agree on the method, I might champion the bug and patch
for <br>
future meetings and releases!<br>
<br>
-Blake-<br>
Conducting Magic<br>
Will consume any data format<br>
MOBIUS<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>