Quoting Weinheimer Jim <j.weinheimer_at_AUR.EDU>:
>
> The word "should" here holds the entire point of whether to use ONIX
> records for library cataloging. There are certain levels of
> standards that must be adhered to if the entire system is not to
> dissolve into complete chaos. These standards must be linked to a
> certain level of assurance that the records actually *do* conform to
> those standards,
It's not just conforming to standards or levels of standards: ONIX
data has a different *purpose* from library data. For example, I have
seen ONIX records that use the cover title as the title ("Jim Smith's
Guide to...") rather than the title page title ("Guide to... by Jim
Smith"). That's because (I am guessing) the title in the
publisher/bookstore catalog needs to match what you'll see on the
spine and cover, since that's how books are shelved in bookstores (and
for buyers, the cover title is *the* title, most likely). Also, the
author name in the ONIX record is the form of the name dictated by the
contract the publisher has with the author; publishers cannot decide
to use a different name (not even for disambiguation). The pagination?
It's the total number of pages -- that is, number of sides of pages of
paper in the book, which, presumably, is what the publisher paid for
and therefore what they easily know. None of this "xii, 356p" stuff.
Their data includes the weight of the book, and all three dimensions
(they have to pack the books in boxes).
So even if the publishers perfectly follow their own standards, their
records will not look like ours. And that is not a bad thing. We
should be able to take what is useful for us from the publisher
records, or link to them for further information. It's a different
view, and a legitimately different view.
This would be easier to do if our record format were more open. YOu
can't grab someone else's bit of data and add it into a MARC record.
(It should be possible to combine publisher data into a MODS record,
and I'd be interested to hear from anyone who has done that.) We need
to see other peoples' data as additive, not a substitute, as I said
before.
kc
--
Karen Coyle
kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
ph: 1-510-540-7596
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet
Received on Thu Dec 23 2010 - 10:42:04 EST