I'd be careful with that - a specific catalog system and the MARC records
used in it are separate (most libraries in the US e.g. by their MARC from
OCLC and/or the LoC). So the fact that there are some odd notes in sample
MARC records here doesn't mean they'd also be meaningless once this is
implemented at a library.


On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 8:14 AM, Aurimas Vinckevicius <
notifications@github.com> wrote:

> In Library Catalog (OPALS).js:
>
> > +    return items;
> > +}
> > +
> > +/** BEGIN TEST CASES **/
> > +var testCases = [{
> > +    "type": "web",
> > +    "url": "http://cogent.opalsinfo.net/bin/search/recDetailPage?rid=68738",
> > +    "items": [{
> > +        "itemType": "book",
> > +        "creators": [{
> > +            "firstName": "Jay",
> > +            "lastName": "Wertz",
> > +            "creatorType": "author"
> > +        }],
> > +        "notes": [{
> > +            "note": "Item cannot be cataloged"
>
> Your new test case shows another note that we would probably want to get
> rid of. Looking through the MARC records for both, I would say that we
> should get rid of all 5xx fields except for 520.
>
> —
> Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub<https://github.com/zotero/translators/pull/715/files#r11733656>
> .
>



-- 
Sebastian Karcher
Ph.D. Candidate
Department of Political Science
Northwestern University