>
> Honestly, I don't know how high of regard I have for our data. I deal
> with it every day. It proves to be frustrating frequently. I'm not
> saying that other sources are always better, but they frequently are.
Do a search on a record in GBS and find a book from one of the
participating libraries. Look at the GBS metadata. Then look up that
record in the library's catalog. Compare the two.
Then look at the message I posted here earlier:
https://listserv.nd.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0909&L=NGC4LIB&T=0&F=&S=&P=7018
It is obvious that GBS has taken some data from library catalogs, but
there are some strange problems in the Google metadata -- like
dropping all but the first $a in 6XX subject headings. It is possible,
although it seems implausible, that Google made some huge errors when
it added the library data to its database.
Let's assume that Google didn't have anyone on board who understands
MARC data. That means that we can set them straight and they can
correct those records. Using that assumption, I am going to post on my
blog a list of data elements that Google should take from the library
records. It is better to provide direction than make vague complaints.
kc
--
Karen Coyle
kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
ph: 1-510-540-7596
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet
Received on Sat Sep 12 2009 - 05:05:13 EDT