Whoa! Wait a minute! Do we reject all data that doesn't look like
ours? Are we unable to make use of data from other communities? That's
a pretty insular point of view. Why not look for how we can benefit
from this data rather than rejecting it out of hand? Yes, they use
different cataloging rules. But they have scientific reports that we
will probably not find elsewhere.
No size? that only would matter to a library that was putting it on a
shelf, and then only if it is an especially odd size. I've been
thinking that we should drop size altogether except for ones that need
special shelving. (For modern books, not rare books.)
Only the first place of publication is given? Show me an example where
I need both in order to get a book to a user. (Actually, show me an
example, in a modern book, where I need place of publication at all to
get a book to a user.)
How different is "277 p." from "xx, 277 p."? Well I can tell you that
no one outside of libraries has any clue as to what that "xx" means,
but "277 p." in both of those statements is clear.
Different subject headings? I see that as *more* not *less*. We also
get different subject headings from publishers, and often they are
closer to what the user is seeking than LCSH.
Really, folks, try the glass half full approach, or die of thirst
while others create flexible, open bibliographic resources.
kc
p.s. we will be ingesting these records into the Open Library, and
quite honestly I don't think it'll be difficult.
--
Karen Coyle
kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
ph: 1-510-540-7596
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet
Received on Mon Feb 01 2010 - 10:19:02 EST