Johanna Looft
My feedback
10 results found
-
45 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment
Johanna Looft
shared this idea
·
-
208 votes
Johanna Looft
supported this idea
·
-
6 votes
Johanna Looft
supported this idea
·
-
61 votes
Johanna Looft
supported this idea
·
-
92 votes
Johanna Looft
shared this idea
·
-
59 votes
Johanna Looft
supported this idea
·
-
145 votes
Johanna Looft
supported this idea
·
-
258 votes
Hello everyone, for those who raised comments about the correction of 830 $v, could you please provide a detailed, step-by-step explanation of the scenario in which this subfield gets overwritten?
Johanna Looft
supported this idea
·
-
72 votes
Johanna Looft
supported this idea
·
-
13 votes
Johanna Looft
supported this idea
·
In order to avoid missunderstandings: a specific line separator (whenever a MARC field is repeated within a bibliographic description) is necessary. What is missleading concerning further processing is the ambiguous use of a character in data exports.