Re: Where to go

Oh boy, the multiple versions problem.
I'll never forget starting work many years ago at a small public library
where their cataloguing routine was to create one record for a title and
then added every version (hard cover, soft cover, audio, film, super
deluxe illustrated version, etc.) they owned to the holdings portion of
the record.  I was so appalled by this poor cataloguing practice!  They
didn't have a librarian in Technical Services and my then haughty self
thought, thank goodness they have me to fix all of this :)  We dutifully
"fixed" it all during a conversion and preparation for a migration, only
to find patrons complaining frequently about getting too many hits for
one title!  Now I think those "unprofessionals" weren't so far off the
mark when it came to providing good access to the collection! :)  If you
searched for a paperback by ISBN would you find it? No, but how many
public library customers search by ISBN??
I think this example really illustrates the difference in the way we
look at our metadata and the way our customers use it.

Cynthia Williamson
Collection Management Librarian
Library @ Mohawk
Mohawk College of Applied Arts and Technology
Hamilton, Ontario



----- Original Message -----
From: Jonathan Rochkind <rochkind_at_JHU.EDU>
Date: Wednesday, September 5, 2007 1:25 pm
Subject: Re: [NGC4LIB] Where to go

> Hahn, Harvey wrote:
> > When OCLC analyzed its database a number of years ago related to
> FRBR,> it found that only 18% of the bib records could take
> advantage of FRBR.
> >
> When people mention this type of number, they forget an important
> fact:Those works which exist in more than one version are, almost by
> definition, the most popular works. The works people want most are the
> ones most likely to to exist in more than one version (translations,
> audio books, collections, etc. etc.). So 18% of bib records almost
> certainly represents more than 18% of books consulted or circulated or
> likely to make a searching user happy. How much more, I'd only be
> guessing.
> But I do have the impression that when data is collected on what bugs
> users most about our catalogs, the 'multiple versions problem' is
> almostalways very high on the list.
>
> Jonathan
>
> > The remainder of the database were one-time works by creators in a
> > single medium, for which FRBR is unnecessary.  Admittedly, FRBR
> is an
> > attractive way to organize multiple works, perhaps in multiple
> > manifestations and such, for prolific and/or famous creators, but I
> > think the fact that it may not do that for 4 out of every 5
> titles in a
> > typical catalog says something, too.
> >
> > Harvey
> >
> > --
> > ===========================================
> > Harvey E. Hahn, Manager, Technical Services Department
> > Arlington Heights (Illinois) Memorial Library
> > 847/506-2644 - FX: 847/506-2650 - Email: hhahn(at)ahml(dot)info
> > OML & Scripts web pages: http://www.ahml.info/oml/
> > Personal web pages: http://users.anet.com/~packrat
> >
> >
>
> --
> Jonathan Rochkind
> Digital Services Software Engineer
> The Sheridan Libraries
> Johns Hopkins University
> 410.516.8886
> rochkind (at) jhu.edu
>


This E-mail contains privileged and confidential information intended
only for the individual or entity named in the message.  If the reader
of this message is not the intended recipient, or the agent responsible
to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that
any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication
is prohibited.  If this communication was received in error, please
notify the sender by reply E-mail immediately, and delete and destroy
the original message.