Don't blame the functionality of a PAC, as far as I know the
capability is there in most of them. It's more of a question how your
local system is set up and how your cataloger catalogs the data.
Series titles are rife with difficulty by their very nature. They can
be numbered or unnumbered. They can have sub-series titles. The
titles change over time. Etc. etc. etc.
The grouping functionality that Jonathan refers to is broad in that it
covers subjects, authors, concepts, titles, etc. Also, he's talking
about the interface view, not necessarily the data underlying the
view. To be fair, MARC is set up to handle series. It does it quite
well, IMHO, given the quirks of series titles.
The way to find what you're looking for using a PAC will vary
depending on how one sets up the PAC to index and display the data
(i.e. whether the field where the series title is located is
searchable as a keyword or a title). It's also impacted by whether or
not the cataloger includes the volume number in the field. The final
caveat is that your library would need to have purchased each title in
the series to enable you to see the series title ordering. Otherwise
you're going to have titles missing from the set. Amazon, Google,
WorldCat et al have the advantage there since they're more global in
scope.
We're an Innovative shop. For us, finding a numbered series is as
simple as doing a title search using series title. See for example,
Lecture Notes in Computer Science:
http://clas.caltech.edu/search/t?SEARCH=lecture+notes+in+computer+science&sortdropdown=-&submit=Submit
Finding an unnumbered series, like O'Reilly's In a Nutshell, takes an
additional step. One would still do a title search using a series
title, but the result set would have to be sorted by date to give you
a clue as to the ordering of series titles
http://clas.caltech.edu/search/t?SEARCH=In+a+Nutshell&sortdropdown=c&submit=Submit
I'd talk to your systems/cataloging folk and see how series titles are
treated in your PAC. It's a shame to be going to Amazon for reference
if your catalog can do it. It's subtly teaching the customer not to
use the library. Sure, going to Amazoogle first makes sense given
that they've got way more records. If you're a highly specialized
library, however, you're probably going to have more unique series
titles in your subject area and you're more likely to hold most of
them. It's a trade off. Search globally, have more likelihood of
getting the answer but have to drill down to local holdings to obtain
the title. Search locally, have more likelihood of getting your
specialty titles, no extra step to get holdings. Personally, I'd lean
towards the local since reference *is* instruction and promoting your
own catalog is good PR.
I agree Amazon, Google et al. do a better job with interface. It's
good to remind ourselves that they're using the same or similar
bibliographic data underneath the hood. There's no reason we can't do
as good or better a job than them in grouping series titles within our
interface layer.
Cheers,
Laura
--
Laura J. Smart
Metadata Services Manager, Caltech Library
laura_at_library.caltech.edu/laura.j.smart_at_gmail.com
On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 8:07 AM, Sharon Foster<fostersm1_at_gmail.com> wrote:
> A very common question at the reference desk is "What's the next book
> in this series?" I have not seen a PAC that can do that. I don't know
> if the capability isn't there, or if it's there but the cataloger
> didn't use it, or if I don't understand how to find the function. I do
> know that Amazon can do it, and that's where I usually go first to
> answer the question. Often, of course, the author's website or
> Wikipedia will answer it.
>
> Sharon M. Foster, JD, MLS
> Librarians bring order out of chaos.
> http://www.vsa-software.com/mlsportfolio/
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 10:42 AM, Jonathan Rochkind<rochkind_at_jhu.edu> wrote:
>> John Hardy wrote:
>>>
>>> Surely though the core difference between the flat text that Google
>>> searches and catalog(ue) records is that the latter (however imperfectly
>>> implemented) have a structure which allows grouping/subsetting:
>>
>> How ironic then that our current interfaces do a VERY poor job of supporting
>> grouping/subsetting. That's not entirely unrelated to the fact that our
>> data, despite being very expensive to produce because it's intended to
>> support those kind of actions -- isn't actually very well designed to
>> support those actions.
>>
>> Jonathan
>>
>>
>>> so for example Google can only make educated guesses if you say to it
>>> "find me more books like this one". Compare for example a search in Google
>>> Squared using "Books on Fish"
>>> (http://www.google.com/squared/search?q=books+on+fish) with a catalogue
>>> search for Dewey = 597.2 It is like the difference between today's web and
>>> the Semantic web.
>>>
>>>
>>> John Hardy
>>> Senior Analyst,
>>> Talis Information Ltd
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Next generation catalogs for libraries
>>> [mailto:NGC4LIB_at_LISTSERV.ND.EDU] On Behalf Of Weinheimer Jim
>>> Sent: 10 July 2009 11:35
>>> To: NGC4LIB_at_LISTSERV.ND.EDU
>>> Subject: Re: [NGC4LIB] OCLC Formally Withdraws WorldCat Policy
>>>
>>> Nathan Rinne wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> I firmly believe that Google could never make something approximating a
>>>> dependable, quality catalog without the records that libraries have
>>>> worked so hard to make. Should libraries (and by extension OCLC) look
>>>> forward to the day where they can just give everything away to Google...
>>>> giving into the added powers that Google's alluring algorithms can
>>>> provide? (after all, if they cease to be concerned about protecting
>>>> their records, may that not, in effect, be what they are doing?)
>>>>
>>>
>>> While I agree with these sentiments completely, the problem is that I am
>>> not sure that the general public does and since our profession exists
>>> because the public (i.e. our users) decide to fund us, or not, their
>>> perceptions are vital, and especially so today. Before the web, libraries
>>> had an almost monopoly on information (or at least that was the way it
>>> seemed in the popular imagination) but now that we are facing real, and
>>> stiff, competition, problems have arisen that before were hidden, or at
>>> least, could be safely ignored.
>>>
>>> For example, when I try to instruct students in how to search a catalog,
>>> they look at you like you are teaching them how to make a fire with two
>>> sticks, so you have to (at least I feel that I have to) interject phrases
>>> such as, "this is the way that it has traditionally been done" "both methods
>>> have their strengths" "someday some clever person will bring it all together
>>> and something really powerful will be made."
>>>
>>> What I am saying is: I don't know if our users see the value in a
>>> "dependable, quality catalog" as librarians understand it. This is one of
>>> the major criticisms I have of RDA, which is rooted very firmly in the
>>> library world and not in their world. While to me it is elementary to
>>> suspect that if a tool can't even bring the separate volumes of a bookset
>>> together, we should then be very skeptical that it can bring an author's
>>> works together, or bring together a collection of resources on the same
>>> topic (that is "reliably" in a librarian's definition of the word). This
>>> turns out to be very difficult for a layman to grasp however.
>>>
>>> This should be one of the major focuses of user education, so that our
>>> users can begin to appreciate some of the work that we do. That is *very
>>> difficult* to do however, when people are so "happy" with Google.
>>>
>>> Jim Weinheimer
>>>
>>> Please consider the environment before printing this email.
>>>
>>> Find out more about Talis at www.talis.com
>>>
>>> shared innovationTM
>>>
>>> Any views or personal opinions expressed within this email may not be
>>> those of Talis Information Ltd or its employees. The content of this email
>>> message and any files that may be attached are confidential, and for the
>>> usage of the intended recipient only. If you are not the intended recipient,
>>> then please return this message to the sender and delete it. Any use of this
>>> e-mail by an unauthorised recipient is prohibited.
>>>
>>> Talis Information Ltd is a member of the Talis Group of companies and is
>>> registered in England No 3638278 with its registered office at Knights
>>> Court, Solihull Parkway, Birmingham Business Park, B37 7YB.
>>>
>>>
>>
>
Received on Mon Jul 13 2009 - 14:02:41 EDT