Skip to main content
ExLibris
  • Subscribe by RSS
  • Ex Libris Knowledge Center

    Indexing of OCLC numbers doesn't work

    • Article Type: General
    • Product: Aleph
    • Product Version: 18.01

    Description:
    I'm having trouble creating an index for OCLC numbers. We already index the number in a direct index called 035 but that indexes any 035 number. I'd like to index only OCLC numbers in their own index since we are buying WorldCat Local.

    Here is what I have:

    tab00.eng
    ! 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
    !-!!!!!-!!!!!-!-!!-!!-!-!---!!-!!!!!-!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    H OCL IND 24 00 00 OCLC Match on 035$$a(OCoLC)

    tab11_ind
    ! 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
    !!!!!-!!!!!-!-!!!!!!!!!!-!!!!!-!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!-!-!
    035 a ocolc OCL -z6

    tab_filing
    !1 2 3 4
    !!-!-!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!-!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    ! For OCLC match
    24 del_subfield
    24 to_lower
    24 compress -^
    24 compress_blank
    24 cut_prefix
    24 non_numeric

    This setup fails to index the OCLC 035’s. The intent of of the tab11_ind entry is to look in the the $$a of the 035 and if it contains the string 'ocolc' then index into OCL and then tab_filing would strip out all non-numeric characters. All it seems to be doing is looking for 035s that contain ONLY the 'ocolc' string and indexes those, which we seem to have 21 of. Is there a way to do what I want?

    Resolution:
    The 035 field in these OCLC records begins with "(OCoLC)" -- not "ocolc".

    Change the abc01 tab11_ind to this:

    ! 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
    !!!!!-!!!!!-!-!!!!!!!!!!-!!!!!-!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!-!-!

    035 a (ocolc)* OCL -z6

    (The asterisk is a wildcard indicating that it doesn't matter what comes after.)

    Then restart ue_01 and re-send some records for indexing.

    If OK, re-run p_manage_05.

    I would also note that, since you have this line:

    24 non_numeric

    there is no need to omit the prefixes in tab11_ind; the non_numeric tab_filing line will omit all non-numeric characters.

    KB 16384-36642 is a general discussion of this issue.


    • Article last edited: 10/8/2013