Quoting Charles Ledvina <cledvina_at_MAIL.OWLS.LIB.WI.US>:
>> Comments on LC record:
>> 010: retrieved from the electronic CIP application
>> 020: qualifier given here rather than in 500.
>
> I will see if I can remap this data to the 020.
While this would be correct, resulting in something like:
020 $a 3846750293 (paperback)
it is a TERRIBLE practice because it mixes up the ISBN, which we need
for all kinds of linking, and text, which always has to be removed
before we can make use of the ISBN. The textual part REALLY needs to
be in a separate subfield. This is a place where it might be valuable
to vary from usual library practice.
>
>> 260: cataloger supplied place to ONIX converter application, also for
> 008.
>
> Amazon does not supply this information. I suppose I could add a lookup
> function that will provide a place based on matching a publisher's name.
> Does anybody on this list know of a comprehensive publisher database?
I don't know of one, and in some cases the publisher publishes from
more than one place -- so a book by the same publisher may come out as
London or New York or both. However, you can "guess" the publisher
using the ISBN prefix. There is a partial list at this wikipedia page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isbn#Publisher_code
It'll probably work for the proverbial 80-90% of mainstream publishing.
>
>> 300: LC decided not to add pagination at this time.
>
> This is a good idea. My experience is that the pagination is usually
> wrong, however, the number of discs for sound recordings or videodiscs is
> usually correct. I added a button on top of the full record screen which
> will replace the 300 field data with "p. cm."
My impression is that the publishers provide the literal "number of
pages" while libraries code "pagination" - so it's the difference
between:
x, 350
and
360
Again, it would be great to have a "number of pages" option in MARC,
which would be better than not recording anything. It does give the
user some idea of the size of the book, and the difference between
pagination and pages for the users is probably not significant.
>
>> 490: cataloger found series number in electronic manuscript and added
> it.
>
> Amazon's series sometimes contains the number. In fact Amazon does not
> have a series field in the ONIX record, the converter simply takes
> whatever
> it finds between the parentheses in the title field.
I've run into all kinds of odd "problems" or differences of opinion
about series, and it turns out to be a very complex concept with many
different interpretations. Many readers consider "Harry Potter" or
"the Kinsey Millhone mysteries" to be a series, and ones they would
like to find made visible in catalogs since they want to read them
all, and in order. Libraries have a different interpretation of
series. But, yes, Amazon puts its interpretation of series in the
title field. *sigh*
> This is the very reason why I use Amazon for my source. Publishers from
> around the world send to them their data and Amazon compiles it and dishes
> it
> out for free!
>
This is pretty much the same reason why the Open Library uses Amazon
data. It's up to date (include forthcoming books), it gathers from a
lot of different sources (some of which aren't so hot, by the way --
the third-party sellers turn out some really ugly data and it might be
best to skip those), and it is free. That's hard to beat.
kc
--
Karen Coyle
kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
ph: 1-510-540-7596
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet
Received on Sat Jan 01 2011 - 12:42:13 EST