[299] in ad-lib
Re: WP and EFC's conversion on the fly
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Eric Celeste)
Thu Apr 6 12:30:05 1995
To: Sarah Mitchell <smitchel@MIT.EDU>
Cc: ad-cat@MIT.EDU
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 06 Apr 1995 10:15:53 EDT."
<9504061415.AA07645@lauren.MIT.EDU>
Date: Thu, 06 Apr 1995 12:29:34 EDT
From: Eric Celeste <efc@MIT.EDU>
MR asks...
> I was looking at the Conv on the fly records. Do the default port
> records match properly? i.e. both the circ record and the cat record
> for default format. If so, which port records were they so I can check?
No, the circ and cat ports did not "match" defaults. The circ port record
was set up to default to BR for conversion on the fly. The cat port was
set up to default to BK for new records. We were using my "efc" port for
circ, and both "efc" and another port (cat? wpowers?) for cataloging.
> Updating a conversion on the fly record may be more akin to creating a
> new record - was the catalogers default format BR? Use of the "Overlay
> workform" may be useful here as well - this will also be dependent on
> default format for the cataloger.
No, the cataloger default was not BR, it was BK. Why is _updating_ an
existing conversion on the fly record like _creating_ a new record? Isn't
this all "one big database" or are conversion on the fly records not
_really_ records in the bib file?
We also could not figure out how to overlay a workform of a different
format onto an existing record. When we went to the leader info and tried
to change the "type" and "level" of the record it would not allow anything
but the legal values for that particular format. Does this mean that we
have to make the leader type and value for _every_ format valid in _every_
format just so we can change the format of a given record? Is this
recommended or does this have hidden costs associated with it?
...Eric
