As we contemplate the introduction of this sort of metadata into a
MARC-based catalogue, I think it's important to keep in mind the hash
that can be made of search result displays. ONIX may "meet our users
objectives" from the vantage point of a simple keyword search, but what
about the mess that headings on non-library metadata can make in a
browse list of authority-controlled headings? I suppose you *could* try
subjecting the authority-controlled fields in those stub records to
validation at load time, but that sounds to me like an exercise fraught
with potential for all sorts of mischief... and perilously close to
recreating a "real" cataloguing record.
And as for whether or not it would "significantly lessen the burden of
transcription from the item-in-hand by catalogers", I think there are a
couple of questions:
- How often do we have ONIX records for which there is no easily
obtained quality cataloguing copy available? I don't know the answer,
but intuition tells me that the number of such occasions is probably
small in this day and age.
- If you want a good feel for how cataloguers react to editing publisher
supplied metadata into full-level bibliographic records, I'd suggest
that you either pose the question on Autocat (autocat_at_listserv.syr.edu)
or else just spend a bit of time in that list's archives. The vast
majority of postings there on this very question suggest that most
cataloguers find it far more efficient to enter a completely new record,
than to upgrade an existing, substandard one. And there is scant
sympathy among the members of this same group for what many of them
think of as the pollution of the WorldCat database with publisher records.
cheers,
- mt
On 12/22/2010 03:28 PM, Cory Rockliff wrote:
> This is actually what I imagined would be the primary use case for ONIX
> in libraries--Even if there's a lot more to add in order to arrive at a
> "full" record (however we're to define that), deriving MARC record
> "stubs" from ONIX should significantly lessen the burden of
> transcription from the item-in-hand by catalogers.
>
> On 12/22/10 5:07 PM, Jonathan Rochkind wrote:
>> I suspect they might be a good start for quicker more efficient
>> library cataloging too.
>>
>> Take an ONIX record, control the author field, add some controlled
>> subjects, maybe you're done.
>>
>> This would still be less meaning than is intended by our traditional
>> records. But would it be enough to meet our users objectives, and how
>> much time would it save? I don't know, really just a random
>> suggestion I think worth further investigation, but probably won't
>> receive it.
>
> ---
> [This E-mail scanned for viruses by Declude Virus]
>
--
*************************************************************************
Marc Truitt
Associate Director,
Bibliographic and Information Voice : 780-492-4770
Technology Services e-mail : marc.truitt_at_ualberta.ca
University of Alberta Libraries fax : 780-492-9243
Cameron Library cell : 780-217-0356
Edmonton, AB T6G 2J8
"No, you're never too old to Rock'n'Roll if you're too young to die."
-- Ian Anderson (1976)
*************************************************************************
Received on Wed Dec 22 2010 - 18:49:55 EST