We disagree, but thanks for the nice reply.
Hunter
-----Original Message-----
From: Next generation catalogs for libraries
[mailto:NGC4LIB_at_listserv.nd.edu] On Behalf Of Dykas, Felicity A.
Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2007 12:06 PM
To: NGC4LIB_at_listserv.nd.edu
Subject: Re: [NGC4LIB] Cutter's Rules in full text - a case for
FRBRization
Aggregator neutral records are being used for serials and I think we
should implement them for monographs. If this is done there will be one
record in WorldCat for all digitized copies of a particular book.
Separate records in WorldCat for the NetLibrary version, ebrary version,
Google-scanned version, etc., is a problem. I cringe when I add another
record because the provider is different.
We've cataloged a few books that were scanned by Google and are creating
one record for a title, even if more than one copy has been scanned. In
the URL field we are indicating who held the original book:
http://laurel.lso.missouri.edu/search/Y?searchtype=o&searcharg=166255505
&SORT=D&searchscope=8. Cataloging rules for online materials continue
to be in flux (or at least not clear) and we may be taking some
liberties in what we're doing.
I think separate records for print and online will facilitate searching
and identification (eventually).
Felicity Dykas
MU Libraries
University of Missouri--Columbia
-----Original Message-----
From: Next generation catalogs for libraries
[mailto:NGC4LIB_at_listserv.nd.edu] On Behalf Of Frances Dean McNamara
Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2007 9:42 AM
To: NGC4LIB_at_listserv.nd.edu
Subject: Re: [NGC4LIB] Cutter's Rules in full text - a case for
FRBRization
At ALA OCLC was describing how they will start adding records to
Worldcat for Google and Google member library e-books from the Google
Book Search project. However they plan to add new separate bibs for
every instance, using "institutional records" where there are separate
instances of the same book for Michigan, Harvard, NYPL, etc. They will
automatically retain the OCLC# for the print copy. In fact they are
creating these new records from that print copy.
The proliferation of separate bibs in Worldcat for all these copies of
the same thing is probably going to be messy. I don't think that is
being done to help people searching for the title, it's to help
librarians know what's been digitized and who has the file, I think.
What we really want is an easy way to know that something is available
in print and electronic form and to easily be able to decide which form
is the right one for what we are doing at that moment, don't you think?
Isn't this like link resolver linking? Wouldn't it be better to keep
that information somewhere and use a link resolver to go find out which
electronic versions are available to me? Especially since we are
already finding that what is available to someone in one country may not
be available in another.
I'm not understanding why people think separate bib records are useful
for this. I can't help thinking that adding these things to
knowledgebases for link resolvers may provide a better end result for
users.
Frances McNamara
University of Chicago
Received on Thu Sep 06 2007 - 11:45:11 EDT