[OPEN-ILS-GENERAL] Regarding auth-bib linking on combined name/title headings (1xx main entry + 240 field)

[Srey Seng]

I went ahead and created an LP bug for this:
https://bugs.launchpad.net/evergreen/+bug/1358938

Thanks!

From: open-ils-general-bounces at list.georgialibraries.org [mailto:open-ils-general-bounces at list.georgialibraries.org] On Behalf Of Srey Seng
Sent: Friday, August 15, 2014 11:50 AM
To: Evergreen Discussion Group
Subject: Re: [OPEN-ILS-GENERAL] Regarding auth-bib linking on combined name/title headings (1xx main entry + 240 field)


Appreciate the background information!



In short, I was interested in finding out whether libraries run any statistics after bib-auth linking, for the purposes of doing a high level verification that bib-auth linking "worked."



For instance, if I export to Backstage 500 bib records to be processed, and I get back 1000 authority records, after I run bib-auth linking in Evergreen on these 500 bib records and the 1000 authority records that were returned, the general expectation is that all 1000 authority records should be linked to those 500 bib records (since those 500 bib records matched/generated those authorized headings).



When not all of these authorities linked in Evergreen was what lead us to investigate further and discover interesting facts about our data and this particular finding was one of the reasons we found why not all authorities returned linked.

Thanks!

From: open-ils-general-bounces at list.georgialibraries.org [mailto:open-ils-general-bounces at list.georgialibraries.org] On Behalf Of Mike Rylander
Sent: Thursday, August 14, 2014 11:06 AM
To: Evergreen Discussion Group
Subject: Re: [OPEN-ILS-GENERAL] Regarding auth-bib linking on combined name/title headings (1xx main entry + 240 field)

This isn't an answer to the question, but for some background, I personally heard about this for the first time at the 2014 Evergreen conference.  There's no code supporting 1-auth-field/multi-bib-fields today.

As a general question to the catalogers out there, is the 1XX/240 combo the only instance of this that you're aware of, or is there a general pattern of combining the control of multiple bib fields into a single authority field?  That might inform the direction taken with any code to address this.

TIA,


On Thu, Aug 14, 2014 at 12:56 PM, Srey Seng <sSeng at catalystitservices.com<mailto:sSeng at catalystitservices.com>> wrote:
Hello,

Question: Has any libraries out there performed bib-auth linking (with Backstage as a vendor ) and encounter the following scenario in their data? Any insight into how you approach this situation?

According to Backstage, their system will combine the 1XX and 240 into a temporary unified heading for matching against LC. In short, we can have situations where we have a Bib that generated an authority record after processing, similar to the example bib and auth snippet listed below.

This bib…
=100  0\$aMartial.
=240  10$aEpigrammata.$lEnglish & Latin.$kSelections
Generates this auth…
=100  0\$aMartial.$tEpigrammata.$kSelections.$lEnglish & Latin

From my understanding of authority control and bib-auth linking in Evergreen, only a one MARC tag to one MARC tag (and one subfield to one subfield) type of linking/control is supported. So, running this bib/auth pair through bib-auth linking does not link these two together. I found this situation to be one reason why some authority records returned from backstage does not link to any bib when looking at some stats after linking.

Thanks again for your help!




--
Mike Rylander
 | Director of Research and Development
 | Equinox Software, Inc. / Your Library's Guide to Open Source
 | phone:  1-877-OPEN-ILS (673-6457)
 | email:  miker at esilibrary.com<mailto:miker at esilibrary.com>
 | web:  http://www.esilibrary.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://libmail.georgialibraries.org/pipermail/open-ils-general/attachments/20140819/e8f8ec40/attachment-0001.htm>