Wednesday, July 14, 2004 01:15 CDT -- Happy Bastille Day to our French Koha-ites! Hi, Hans, Continuing the detailed response to your message on list-serv for this penultimate part ... ----- Original Message ----- From: "Hans Henderson" <hans@shrewsbury.ac.th> To: "Koha mailing list" <koha@lists.katipo.co.nz> Sent: Friday, July 09, 2004 4:42 AM Subject: re: [Koha] Biblio records as book set "container" records - hierarchical groupings

OK, to continue back on-list with this last bit:

...

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.

So a "dummy" Biblio record that doesn't point to a specific resource, but provides links to all the various other "real" Biblios that are related.

I wouldn't use the term "dummy" in this case (mostly because I tend to use that term when referring to a mock-up of a record, what others might call a template for a record - but again, that's probably just because that's the way I was taught). It wouldn't exactly be a 'dummy' in the sense I think you meant either. What it would be is a valid record that actually describes a set of items. One of the core functions of the Leader is to designate what kind of record one is dealing with. For people who use MARC for collections that might include archival materials (instead of RAMP or in addition to it), they are probably more use to using Leader Position 07 codes the rest of us never have occasion to use: things like c = Collection, or d = Subcollection. You would be able to use those codes legitimately in outlining the 'master' record that would list, albeit it briefly, the component parts. You could also legitimately -- if you boxed the whole group of items at least -- then use the a = Monographic component part code in the records for the individual items. If you choose, you could ignore these minutiae, and simply code the Leader as for a regular monographic item (position 7 = m) and then rely on the rest of the records to clarify the relationships of the parts. The parts would be what you would assign barcodes to, BTW, and not necessarily the overarching 'master' record (you could give it a barcode, too, but I wouldn't recommend it as it tends to confuse who has what over time unless you are very scrupulous about check-in procedures); the parts are what tend to get lost, after all, not the whole, so you definitely want to know who has each little bit.

... Would these be actual "links" in the www sense, so a user could click to pull up the Biblio listing, e.g. make a reservation and then navigate back to the parent record, click to open the next Biblio they wanted to reserve, etc?

My understanding is that we don't have live 'hyperlink' records. Is that correct? Paul? Stephen? Pate? anyone? (If this doesn't make sense to anyone, visit the Library of Congress catalogue which (still, I believe) is Voyager: when you do a search the various parts of the individual record results are 'hyperlinked', essentially performing an instant search on author, if you click on author, or series, or a subject term. A very handy feature.)

If the display just provided a text listing showing what related resources were available, then they'd have to launch a separate search for each one, bit of a PITA. . .

Although not as much as a card catalogue, or God forbid, COM catalogue ;-)

The big question remains (addressed to whoever can answer, not Steven specifically - will coding these relationships in the MARC records prior to import help Koha tie the various Biblioitem records together to their common "master" Biblios? Is there any field content "matching" going on during the import?

Or will they just all come in as separate Biblios?

My understanding, for whatever that's worth (and Chris, I apologise in advance if I misunderstood or am misremembering what you so diligently and patiently delineated for me almost a year ago now), is that they are *all separate Biblioitems when we import them as MARC records.* I hope that I understood/remembered that right (BTW this is good from the MARC-perspective on things, 'cause the Biblio level causes some problems from a strict application of MARC coding principles which require that the bibliographic record be integral and not fractured with part of the data shuffled to another 'level').

And if the latter, is there a way to tie them together after the import?

If the records are coded correctly, whether you do it simply with 500 notes and traced series (as I would recommend) or more complicatedly with Collections, Subcollections, etc. in the Leader and/or 76x and 77x tags, the relationships will be intact however Koha deals with them. (I think the real beauty of the redundant 500 shows here most clearly, Hans, as no matter what Koha or another ILS might do -- remember, people, we are in a world that shares records! -- the 500 is usually there and is 'safe' across different ILS.)

Thanks in advance. . .

Hans

Hope some of this has actually been helpful, Hans. Looking forward to hearing back from the true cognoscenti on the hyperlink and MARC-Biblio::Biblioitem relationship questions. 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: 6.0.717 / Virus Database: 473 - Release Date: 09/07/2004