Well, the problem here is that I don't generally see titles that are
available via Project Gutenberg or other freely available items
(within reason). Why are these not considered 'part of the
collection'? If a user is searching for a title, and the library
doesn't have it in print, but it's available in Google Book Search
(and out of copyright), why wouldn't the 'catalog' show that?
-Ross.
On 6/7/06, Hodson, Tim <timhodson_at_herefordshire.gov.uk> wrote:
> We hide anything that the public does not need to see, especially
> withdrawn items. However missing items may not quite be lost yet, so
> items have six months grace before they are marked as withdrawn.
> Perhaps we are more enlightened here than previously thought!
>
> Tim Hodson
> http://informationtakesover.co.uk
> Herefordshire Libraries, UK
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Next generation catalogs for libraries
> [mailto:NGC4LIB_at_listserv.nd.edu]On Behalf Of Guinn, Richard L
> Sent: 07 June 2006 16:09
> To: NGC4LIB_at_listserv.nd.edu
> Subject: Re: [NGC4LIB] Define catalog!
>
>
> A public library I used to work for years ago did a very similar thing,
> have lost items show up in the OPAC with a display of lost. It's
> frustrating to find the title and then realize it's just not available.
> I suggested suppressing the records, but to no avail.
>
> Richard Guinn
> Richard.L.Guinn_at_uth.tmc.edu
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Next generation catalogs for libraries
> [mailto:NGC4LIB_at_listserv.nd.edu] On Behalf Of Thomas Dowling
> Sent: Wednesday, June 07, 2006 10:04 AM
> To: NGC4LIB_at_listserv.nd.edu
> Subject: Re: Define catalog!
>
> On 6/7/2006 10:33 AM, Scott Warren wrote:
>
> > ...If it is in the catalog, you
> > have access to it, period.
>
> Er, let's say "ellipsis" there. It is a source of constant frustration
> for users that they search for a popular topic or item and hit after hit
> is checked out and the user does not have access in any satisfying way.
> [A local public library leaves catalog records for lost items with a
> holdings note of "The library owns zero copies". Gee, thanks.]
>
> This came up at a brainstorming session we held earlier this year - a
> next gen function that could earn us a lot of good will would be a way
> to limit searching to items that are actually available, or to
> circulating items that are actually available. (Or to items actually
> available in my branch or location). Apologies to anyone whose system
> currently offers that, but it's unknown around here.
>
>
> Thomas Dowling
> tdowling_at_ohiolink.edu
>
Received on Thu Jun 08 2006 - 00:00:44 EDT