[OPEN-ILS-GENERAL] Weekly serials in 2.0

[Lebbeous Fogle-Weekley]

On 02/21/2011 03:10 AM, Marjolein Kremer wrote:

Hello Marjolein,

I came up with a pattern code and a holding code that may work for you.

For my test I wanted a weekly serial appearing every Monday.  Each issue 
will have volume and number enumeration captions, as well as year, 
month, and date chronological captions.

I used the last Monday in December 2010 for my "dummy" issue, so the 
predictions start with the first Monday in 2011.

["2","0","8","1","a","vol","b","no","u","52","v","r","i","(year)","j","(month)","k","(day)","w","w"]

["4","1","8","1","a","10","b","52","i",2010,"j",12,"k",27]

If the above codes and variations work for you too, then great, although 
I can see how there may be a problem if some of the below don't work. 
I'll comment on what I see in your examples below.

> Pattern code for:
> vol., no.52,[...]year,month,week[...] weekly (2nd try)
> ["2","0","8","1","a","vol","b","nr","u","52","v","r","i","(year)","j","(month)","k","(week)","w","w"]
> Holding code:
> ["4","1","8","1","a","10","b","52","i",52,"j",2010]
> (does not work)
>

The above doesn't work because the holding code's subfield $i and $j are 
reversed from what you was defined in the pattern code.  $i should have 
been 2010 and $j should have been 52 to correspond to year and month, 
respectively.  There also needs to be a $k in the holding code since 
there is one in the pattern code.

> Pattern code for:
> no., [...] year, week (3rd try)
> ["1","0","8","1","a","no","i","(year)","j","(week)","w","w"]
> Holding code:
> ["4","1","8","1","a","52","i",2010,"j",51]
>

Indeed, the predictions from the above example are very bizarre. I get
	'no53(2011:48)'
	'no54(2012:45)'
	'no55(2013:42)'
	'no56(2014:39)'
and so on.  That's presumably a bug unless there's some MFHD subtlety I 
can't get my head around.  Perhaps David would be kind enough to chime 
in again on this one?

> Pattern code for:
> vol., no. 52[...], week, year [...] weekly (4th try)
> ["2","0","8","1","a","vol","b","no","u","52","v","c","i","(week)","j","(year)","w","w"]
> Holding code:
> ["4","1","8","1","a","10","b","52","i",52,"j",2010]
>

The above example can't work because the chronology unit in subfield $i 
is "smaller" than the one follows in subfield $j.  Although the pattern 
code wizard has a textual warning against doing this, I recognize that 
it would be better if it actually prevented the user from making this 
mistake.

> Pattern code for:
> vol., year, week (5th try)
> ["2","0","8","1","a","vol","i","(year)","j","(week)","w","w"]
> Holding code:
> ["4","1","8","1","a","10","i",2010,"j",52]
>

The above example exhibits similarly unexpected predictions as the one 
two examples higher, for which I'm soliciting David's help.  I'm not 
sure what's happening at this time.

> We always delete the previous issuance, so that should not be the problem.

Good! You were right to do this.

> We hope you can help.
>
> Marjolein
>

I hope this has been at least some help.  Perhaps my example at the 
beginning of this e-mail will give you something to work with.  I will 
update the list with any progress on tracking down the problem with the 
patterns that have me confused now.

Thanks!
-- 
Lebbeous