Thursday, July 8, 2004 22:40 CDT Hi, Hans, Since your follow-up invited "feedback on how I'm totally off-base regarding normal library practices <g>, along with suggestions on how to accomplish what I'm trying to do", I thought I might give this a go. Shan't be as long or as detailed as you deserve, given the effort you put in, but after 3 reads, my head is still swimming slightly ;-) ... I understand the hierarchical nature of the sets. Excellent diagramming BTW. :-) I think what you proposed is very imaginative and thorough but I think it might prove overwhelming for you or others to code and daunting even to look at on the OPAC. What I would propose as a 'counter-offer' is using a series tag 440 (or 490 - 830 if necessary), based on the understanding that these sets of books really are parts of series that are meant to be used in the way that you are doing. If you created/imported a simpler MARC record for each title, you could make the links with their hierarchical series by creating a useful local 440 (series tracing). Granted, this may not be a perfectly kosher use of the 440 -- what you choose might not be recognised anywhere else as a series --, but what you are proposing otherwise really would require detailed Analytics (library jargon) that would give any cataloguer a headache. In any case, what I am proposing would allow OPAC users the ability to find each individual title without necessarily making each individual record overwhelming (20-30 title- and/or author-title added entries plus the problem of deciding a legitimate 245 entry). Each record would have the 440 showing what group it belongs to as well as the call number which would show where it is collocated/located on the shelves. Again, on the creative and imaginative, I think your classification schema is quite neat, but if these are stable sets (i.e. there isn't anything significant that is going to be going in/coming out of them), it might be simpler to make a Dewey like number, something like this (and please forgive me if I don't get the details all correct in this first go at it): 001 Kip r1 <and so on for readers, playscripts, etc.> a1 <and so on for added title cutters (if desired to lock down - title order: if you desire that level of alphabetic z9 arrangement on the shelves, be careful here if more books are expected in the sets/series> c.1 <i.e. copy 1, and so on> ---- for what you diagrammed as ---- Oxford====>Reading Tree===>Stage 1==>Kipper=>Readers: The '001' part would represent all of the "Oxford====>Reading Tree===>Stage 1" element. "Kip" would represent the 'subseries' "Kipper", the "r1" (or simply 'r') the "Readers" group of format, and the "a1 - z9" (and so on), the titles of the individual readers, if that is something desirable for keeping the collection in predictable order. Copy numbers would be added last as is usual. This kind of system, of course, would depend on whether I understood what you meant by --
Our shelving/numbering system (at least for this Item type) is to put all the books in order of reading difficulty level. I've created an alphanumeric local call number, which is the first part of the barcode that shows the level, then the set, then the titles, and then the copies. So Q010A04 means "the fourth copy of title A in set 010 in reading difficulty level Q". I've collected all my MARC records into text files by set. The file name for this set would be Q010.mrc, which would contain the MARC records for titles A, B, C, etc.
-- that is, specifically, whether you meant that, within each grouping, the Kipper, Biff etc. are providing the collocation of reading difficulty. If there are multiple levels within each of those, it could still be salvaged by adding digits to the series, provided that this would preserve the shelving arrangement that your staff desired.
I plan to import these one set file at a time, and if any MARC fields could be added to the records before importing to facilitate what I'm trying to do that would be relatively easy. I've done some initial reading of the MARC documentation and found some fields that seem designed to handle such relationships between separate titles (e.g. 440), but I only want to invest time in figuring out how to add them to my records if it will be useful within Koha after importing the MARC records.
This is the point where you lost me, Hans. Do you mean that somebody already went to the trouble of creating the complex in-analytics that would track each individual title within a 'master' record that lists everything in one of these sets?!? Would it be possible for you to send a copy of this? (offlist might work better, unless others are curious, too).
Some of the MARC records list multiple ISBNs reflecting some of this information, but they aren't complete, nor even consistent within a series! It is critical for people to see what related resources are available when they are browsing a given Reader in the OPAC, but some people want to just use the readers and ignore the rest, so I don't want to artificially create monolithic sets forcing people to borrow more than they need.
That's why I suggested what I did above. Another way to handle it, with analytics, would be to have brief but complete records for all the 'elements' of the set, and a 'master' record that listed (say in a 505 and with 700s) all the elements that make up the set.
As a separate but related issue, people placing orders to replenish our inventory should know which ISBNs to use for ordering - via set ISBNs rather than individually. Some ISBNs might be for six copies of one title within the series, others might be for one copy of each book in the series, another might be for six copies of each Reader plus one of each Big Book and take-home card plus one Teacher's Guide covering everything. And so on, with many permutations for each publisher. If necessary this information can be stored outside the system, but if it's possible for Koha to show these relationships that would be ideal. Even better would be for the budgeting and acquisitions modules to take advantage of such data.
That's why I would favour each element being linked as part of a series, even if that isn't strictly speaking, a true series.
[major snip]
I can't tackle your questions on s the Biblio:Biblioitems relationship, because, quite frankly, I've never got this straight in my own head. Hopefully someone else will tackle that one for you.
Phew! I really hope I'm making things more complicated than necessary, and there's a usual library management practice to handle this reflected in Koha and/or MARC information.
That's okay. We're all in different places in these regards and you've only asked for help. The worst that can happen is that no one will have the right/good-enough answers. ;-) As many of us learn in library tech and professional library studies, in librarianship, 'it depends' is usually the right answer and you will find a fairly wide range of acceptable practices.
I appreciate your even reading this far, much less actually attempting an answer <g>
Hope you still feel that way ;-) and that this answer may help in part. Give us a shout back and let the games begin. Cheers, Steven F. Baljkas library tech at large Koha neophyte Winnipeg, MB, Canada --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.707 / Virus Database: 463 - Release Date: 15/06/2004