Király Péter

@nichtich I added "1..." and "2..." to the end of the list of 0 fields, so fields start with 1 and 2 are ignored now from completeness and validation.

Thanks! I am checking it.

@phochste The full record is this: ``` LEADER 01168cam a2200325 a 4500 001 000714573 005 20170426113133.0 008 940524s1993 is b 001 0 heb d 010 $a94827404 020 $z096534215X 035 $9(DLC)...

I will encode reference field path the following way: ``` 880->490$ind1 ``` Is it acceptable? Is there a standard way of notation?

Thanks for the reference, I'll follow that notification! Yes, I think that it is a mistake, but that is my interpretation. The wording of the standard is not very clear...

BTW: yesterday I commited changes to make it explicit that it is referenced. Right now it uses `880->490$ind1` notation, I'll change it to something like `880$6{490_1}` (I'll consult with @cKlee).

Dear @cKlee, the aim of this task is to provide a validation report for MARC records. The tool produces a report line for each found issue, which contains the ID,...

@cKlee Thanks a lot for your help! I'll ask MARC cataloguers, if they are OK with this notations. My first impression is the specification is mainly for comparing values, and...

Dear @cKlee, Great, we are on the same page, you don't have to persuade me, I just need more knowledge about MARCspec. I'll send you questions regarding to the specification...

A raw version is avalable at https://raw.githubusercontent.com/pkiraly/metadata-qa-marc/d11077c2a71903112b0c24225bd0f42bc1c80f1f/src/main/resources/marc-schema.json The formatted version is displayed at http://pkiraly.github.io/2018/01/28/marc21-in-json/ To generate the file: ```bash ./common-script java -cp $JAR de.gwdg.metadataqa.marc.cli.MappingToJson > marc-schema.json ``` or ```bash java...