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

Additional fields needed in field_schema.yml #109

Closed
3 tasks done
Beck-Davis opened this issue Jan 17, 2024 · 3 comments · Fixed by #123
Closed
3 tasks done

Additional fields needed in field_schema.yml #109

Beck-Davis opened this issue Jan 17, 2024 · 3 comments · Fixed by #123
Assignees

Comments

@Beck-Davis
Copy link
Contributor

Beck-Davis commented Jan 17, 2024

Acceptance criteria:

@Beck-Davis Beck-Davis changed the title Add field 092 to field_schema.yml Additional fields needed in field_schema.yml Jan 18, 2024
@pmgreen pmgreen self-assigned this May 22, 2024
@pmgreen
Copy link
Collaborator

pmgreen commented May 22, 2024

886 is already accounted for. $a and $b are listed twice in the MARC documentation (NR and R). Are they as desired in the existing yaml file?
$a - Tag of the foreign MARC field (NR)
$b - Content of the foreign MARC field (NR)
$a-z - Foreign MARC subfield (R)

@pmgreen
Copy link
Collaborator

pmgreen commented May 22, 2024

@mzelesky does 886 need to be adjusted?

@mzelesky
Copy link
Member

Wow, good catch. Yes, the 886 needs to be adjusted. This one is tricky.

They are all repeatable subfields due to the dual nature of the field.

So,
$a should have a description of Tag of the foreign MARC field / Foreign MARC subfield
$b should have a description of Content of the foreign MARC field / Foreign MARC subfield
$2 should have a description of Source of data / Foreign MARC subfield

The rest of the numerical subfields should just have a description of Foreign MARC subfield

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

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

3 participants