You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Currently, a bf:language property of the work is generated both by the 008/35-37 and by 041 $a and $d. Of the 041, the MARC standard states:
Used in conjunction with 008/35-37 (Language). If there is a code in 008/35-37, it is recorded as the first code in subfields $a or $d (for sound recordings) of field 041.
Should the conversion for the 008/35-37 take the 041 into account, to avoid duplicate bf:language assertions? If both 008/35-37 and 041 $a/$d are present, which would be preferred?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
+1 for avoiding duplicate assertions. However, depending on the amount of indirection involved, this could happen naturally - if the assertions was simply e.g. <work> bf:mainLanguage "eng" (see my proposal in #37) then several assertions like this in the RDF/XML output would collapse into a single triple when interpreted as RDF.
If the languages in 008 and 041 are different, I think just including them all in the output would make sense.
Currently, a bf:language property of the work is generated both by the 008/35-37 and by 041 $a and $d. Of the 041, the MARC standard states:
Should the conversion for the 008/35-37 take the 041 into account, to avoid duplicate bf:language assertions? If both 008/35-37 and 041 $a/$d are present, which would be preferred?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: