On Tue, 28 Dec 2010 09:57:50 +0100, Weinheimer Jim <j.weinheimer_at_AUR.EDU>
wrote:
> ...These two examples (with zillions more very easy to find) illustrate
the
> problem of standards I keep pointing out: almost every single field
*even
> in the ISBD areas* differs. So, while I agree that there is a type of
> "copy" here, its existence is essentially useless: it winds up saving
the
> cataloger no time at all since every field must be redone, and, when
faced
> with such a situation in the aggregate, each field of each record must
be
> checked, even if no editing is done because it is obvious that nothing
can
> be taken for granted.
I agree-- nothing beats a fully cataloged record by a qualified cataloger.
I only use these as temporary records for the purposes of ordering when a
fully cataloged record is not present on OCLC. These Amazon derived
records surely beat the pants off of the Baker & Taylor ONIX derived
records on OCLC.
Charles Ledvina
Received on Tue Dec 28 2010 - 17:46:12 EST