Re: Laundry list for NGC

Don't forget to build in crosschecks
(title/publisher/date/edition/author/etc.) so that when the publisher
assigns the same ISBN, LCCN, etc. to a different manifestation, expression,
or even work, you can differentiate between the different 'things' (how's
that for a wonderfully technical encompassing term?)

Or does this not matter as much in the environment that you are discussing
as it does to ILL and retaining records when batchloading?

Deborah

------
Deborah Fritz
MARC Database Consultant
The MARC of Quality
www.marcofquality.com
Voice/Fax: (321) 676-1904

> On Friday, December 15, 2006 1:25 AM, K.G. Schneider said:
>
> There could arguably be a preferred search order... sort of
> the way we had rules in the military during war games: if
> building A is blown up, go to building B; if building B is
> blown up, go to building C; and my favorite directive: if
> building C is blown up, "use your initiative to survive." It
> is a case where redundancy and a plurality of signifiers is a
> Good Thing. (Lots Of Identifers Keep Stuff Findable?)
>
> K.G. Schneider
> kgs <at> bluehighways.com
>
> On Thu, 14 Dec 2006 19:32:18 -0500, "Diane I. Hillmann"
> <dih1 <at> CORNELL.EDU> said:
> > I think this exchange points up the fallacy that we'll be able to
> > specify an "ideal" identifier.
> > My suspicion is that instead we'll have to come up with a
> > multi-pronged approach whereby whatever identifying numbers we have
> > available are used, and the identification systems
> themselves are part
> > of the deal and specified unambiguously.  So I think we might stop
> > searching for something that is the all encompassing "standard" and
> > settle for a number with it's numbering system identified.
> It's likely
> > that we'll be dealing with "de facto" standards for a long time to
> > come.
> >
> > Diane
> >