Re: Laundry list for NGC (long post) -- How does Koha measure up?

Biblio ~ Book
Graphic ~ Representation
(or something loosely similar)

Maybe it's time for a semantic change?  (Away from container-based
description)

Arguably, a [book / video / recording / etc] is a container for (or
perhaps an iteration or expression of) the content (which is arguably
similar and certainly not exactly the same from book to released movie
to director's cut).

From a librarian point of view, the distinction is important
information.
From many users' points of view, the important thing is the succinctness
of the answer to a colloquial request, e.g. "Do you have Rocky VII,
yet?"

They don't want (as a user *I* certainly don't want) a list of five
separate records which will take five different clicks and backtracks
(for a total of at least 10 clicks) to find out that yes, we do have
Rocky VII - in (record 1) VHS, *click Back* *Click 2nd link* and in
(record 2) book, *click Back* *Click next link* and in (record 3) large
print, *click Back* *Click next link* and in (record 4) DVD, *click
Back* *Click next link* and in (record 5) a book with a slightly
different series title that is actually a duplicate of record 3.

The ubiquitous "they" want what the systems designers in the post below
want, a single response screen with info about *all* the related
expressions of the content -- and they want the power to decide which
expression will suit their needs at that moment in time.

To quote Karen(S) "The user isn't broken." If we accept KGS's
observation as valid, perhaps cataloging rules (which negatively impact
the users' desired record display) are the problem?  (No, I don't have
an elegant solution; I'd accept even a half-baked solution if it
presented itself and didn't break stuff in the process)

Individual records for individual records types have a purpose in an
inventory control sense, but these are artificial constraints when the
users' desires aren't fully known (as in a general keyword or other
free-text search).

-Aaron
'

PS I just heard Rocky VII is in filming -- "Rocky 5000" doesn't seem so
far-fetched any more...

-----Original Message-----
From: Next generation catalogs for libraries
[mailto:NGC4LIB <at> listserv.nd.edu] On Behalf Of Karen Coyle
Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2006 7:14 PM
To: NGC4LIB <at> listserv.nd.edu
Subject: Re: [NGC4LIB] Laundry list for NGC (long post) -- How does Koha
measure up?

Joshua Ferraro wrote:
> The item record:
> http://www.library.org.nz/cgi-bin/koha/opac-detail.pl?bib=35551
> contains several material types: Video, DVD, Fiction, Talking Book,
etc.
>
This is one of those areas where systems designers have been locking
horns with the cataloging rules for quite a while. It even has its own
name: the multiple versions problem, or "mulver." I would love to see
the next generation of rules fix this... The current rules require that
each Manifestation (in FRBR-speak) have its own bibliographic record. In
the case of copies (a microfilm copy of a journal), the records for the
original and the copy are virtually identical because they must both
describe the original item. In the case of items that were issued in
multiple formats, each format gets its own cataloging. Today, the
difference between "different formats" and "copies" is blurred: is a
case of a document in Word that is also saved as PDF a copy, or a
different format? What if you can't tell which is the "original"?
Anyway, what many libraries would like to see (and some are doing
already in a kludge) is using the MARC Holdings record or their library
system's item record to record the data, much like it appears Koha does.
But those libraries cannot share that data in that format, because it
violates the MARC standard and the cataloging rules. It also doesn't
provide them with the fields they need to provide all of the
format-specific data (i.e. the print book is 300 pages long and the
audio book is 6 CDs and lasts 8 hours, and is read by Mr. T.) With the
big digitization projects going on, this means that every time a book is
digitized, a new record will be added to the library catalog. Sheeeesh!
And not good library service.

My fear is that the next set of rules will not address this issue, but
systems designers will be expected to magically make the data look more
like what the user wants.

kc

--
-----------------------------------
Karen Coyle / Digital Library Consultant kcoyle <at> kcoyle.net
http://www.kcoyle.net
ph.: 510-540-7596
fx.: 510-848-3913
mo.: 510-435-8234
------------------------------------