-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 147
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
data model: compare existing MARC tags with JSON data model #779
Comments
It will be included in the JSON data model config. It is modeled on paper already and we're working on getting it from paper into the config file. Will happen next week. Should be the only field, seeing as we took the config file + my notes. |
I've run the script and there are actually more "unknown" tags. Here is the list:
This may be important if we would like to index them and/or display them properly. @pherterich Are you going to amend |
For reference, here is complete overview of which tags are used and how frequently:
|
Sorry, put that on hold after the half finished last try. I can amend this before I go on holiday. |
For the current production site, we need to amend as I've been doing in the following commits:
For the future JSON schema, we may see later, because we would not most probably need any MARC mapping anymore... |
@AnxhelaDani This issue is relevant for your PR #1024. I'll re-run the comparison scripts and update the latest status. |
Here is the tag usage overview on latest QA. (that does not run several last commits WRT field changes, such as run period)
|
... and here are the tags that should be especially verified:
Perhaps some of them are typos and the data should be corrected, but for most of them they are missing in |
According to local field in Invenio indicators should be both undefined, I'll change the 56 records to
I won't include it as we decided |
@pamfilos noticed one record containing
556 $u $y
, which is not present in the JSON data model configuration.@tiborsimko should run comparison script to discover more like this...
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: