Yes, any real marc or later record should have it, but what I was trying to stress (and yes I am starting to get stressed)! You have to have koha have the ability to use that information for those of us in the upper educational and scientific community AND NOT HAVE IT SHOWING DEWEY! This must be an easy to change option for the library involved that should be selectable at startup/install time. The library that is to use the software should not have to write any scripts, recode something, or go to any other effort than to indicate during install if they wish Dewey or lc. Ed!

Subj:[Koha-devel] Re: [Koha] Re: DDC and LC classification - 2 cents more Date:6/17/2003 5:56:21 PM US Mountain Standard Time From:<A HREF="mailto:albert.p.calame@sympatico.ca">albert.p.calame@sympatico.ca</A> To:<A HREF="mailto:koha@lists.katipo.co.nz">koha@lists.katipo.co.nz</A>, <A HREF="mailto:koha-devel@lists.sourceforge.net">koha-devel@lists.sourceforge.net</A> Sent from the Internet

Hi All! We may be missing the point with this discussion. Firstly, while DDC uses mostly a single Classification Number that could fit on a single line (There are a few cases, as with Shakespeare, where an additional line with a special additional code is used to bring out a specific play), a Call Number is not equal to a Classification Number. The Call Number on a book or other item is intended to assist in the location of items where they have been stored (typically books on shelves), however the Classification Number is just a part of the whole Call Number. As Steven mentions below, most libraries add prefixes to indicate shelving locations and add an additional line to indicate the Author or Biographee. The Dewey Number can vary in length from 2 to probably 20 characters, and in such cases, often the number will be split between more than one line (average spine labels are only about 10 characters wide).

In the case of LC Classification, Call numbers usually have 4 lines - two for Classification, one for Date (the three Steven has below) and most often a line for Cutter Number (a code for Author similar in function to the Dewey Author line). Here, too, there may be a prefix to make up the entire Call Number.

In both cases, the classification number tries to group materials on like subjects together so that they are easier to locate.

I _don't_ see, however, the need within koha to give the older non-MARC data structure the additional structures needed to store LC Call Numbers, when any of the MARC structures can do so very well - indeed the required subfields are already in place. I would be surprised if a library that is using LC Classification would want to establish their database in other than MARC structure, especially when we realize that the source of records that the typical academic and scientific libraries that use LC would use to build their catalogues are most likely to be in MARC structure to start with. Why convert the data to a new structure when koha will store it in the original structure to start with?

I understand that some librarians may not particularly care to use MARC, I used to be one of them! But it is the de facto standard for the exchange of bibliographic data. It does have all the fields and subfields already defined to do the job for us. It has built-in flexibility to meet any special needs we may have. It doesn't take too long to come to appreciate that the MARC21 structure does let you do whatever you need to. It only requires that you study a bit to get used to it at first. Non cataloguers likely would think I'm a bit batty for even wanting to!;-) More importantly, however, why re-invent the wheel?

The MARC21 structure provides for this by having several subfields devoted to that specific information. As long as the fields can contain enough data (I suggest 16 characters (maybe 20) to account for even the longest Dewey likely to be used with 12 places after the decimal , or possibly for a complete surname which is sometimes entered in the case of a biography [some names could well exceed the 16 chars]). {MARC structure gives a maximum field length for any field of 9999 characters, so each subfield could be greater than the minimums I mention above .}Those subfields are:

Tag 852 with subfields -

$h - Classification part (NR) (Dewey or LC Classification numbers, such Alpha Classification as E for Easy, B for Biography,etc.) $i - Item part (R) (Used for author letters, cutter numbers, or sometimes biographees last names) $k - Call number prefix (R) (Like REF for reference collections, etc) $m - Call number suffix (R) $t - Copy number (NR)

[This information comes from the MARC Standards page at the Library of Congress Web page with my comments in parentheses after the designation of repeatable or non repeatable]

The MARC structure, with subfields k, i, and m as repeatable does take care of places to store the Call Numbers appropriately. The only problem I can see is that the biblioitems table needs to be able to store the information in the same way, and koha needs to be able to display the repeatable subfields appropriately also. Display order would normally be: k, h, i, m, t.

Display has always been a problem with fields that may be longer that would fit on a single line of a label, hence the addition of break characters that you may see sometimes as apostrophes in the middle of long Dewey Class numbers.

Let's make sure, however, that when it comes time to display or print the Call Numbers, whether with LC or DDC, that we have stored in koha, that we can do so properly, and would be able to actually print new spine labels for books or other items. This would be a better use of programming time, imho, than to add additional structures to the non-MARC structured database in koha for LC users.

That's my 2 cents worth!

Regards, Al Calame

Library Automation Consultant, Librarian-at-Large, Albert P. Calame Consulting Montreal, Québec, Canada

514-745-3424 albert.p.calame@sympatico.ca

Original Message ----- From: "Stephen Hedges" <shedges@athenscounty.lib.oh.us> To: <ABanks@buscominc.com> Cc: <koha@lists.katipo.co.nz>; <koha-devel@lists.sourceforge.net> Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2003 6:22 PM Subject: [Koha] Re: DDC and LC classification

...

For starters, here's a good place to learn how Dewey Decimal Classification (DDC) works:

http://www.oclc.org/oclc/fp/about/about_the_ddc.htm

If you look at this URL and the ones Rob sent, it looks like DDC always fits on one line, while LC can run to as many as five lines. That's true in a theoretical world. In the real world, libraries muck around and add other stuff, to help the people who have to stick the books back on the shelves.

Here's an example. The copy of The Chicago Manual of Style I have beside me has the Library of Congress Cataloguing-in-Publication (CIP) data printed inside the fly leaf. It says that the "official" classifications are as follows:

LC would be - Z253 U69 1993

DDC would be - 808 or 808.027 or 808.0270973 if I'm really picky.

Looks like 3 lines for LC and 1 line for DDC.

But in practice, it's hard for humans to keep a long string of numbers straight and in order when re-shelving books, so most libraries that use DDC do what my library does -- add an extra line with the first two letters of the title or the author's name under a _short_ Dewey number. So the spine label on this particular book reads: 808 Ch instead of 808.0270973

Now it gets really fun! Many libraries also add stuff _before_ the Dewey number, like AB for audiobooks or YA for young adult or J for juvenile or junior. (LC libraries sometimes do this, too.) Yeah, they're really categories and shouldn't be part of the call number. But again, they help humans find, retrieve, and replace stuff on library shelves. Practice supercedes theory once again!

But to get to the point, five lines should be quite enough for most purposes, for either LC or DDC. I'm sure someone will disagree, but any library that thinks it has to have six lines probably needs some discipline!

Stephen Hedges (Nelsonville Public Library)

...

I've been working on SQL phrasebooks to enable multiple backend DB support. I would be happy to help with changing these fields around.

Since my knowledge of library science is pretty much limited to what I've learned off of this list, could someone step up to the plate to do some research on the type and number of fields needed?

----- Original Message ----- From: Chris Cormack <chris@katipo.co.nz> Date: Tuesday, June 17, 2003 1:29 pm Subject: Re: [Koha] More questions - another 2 cents worth

...

I think there may be some confusion between a lccn number (library of congress control number) and library of congress call numbers. If I understand correctly, a lccn number is single unique number used to identify a specific title, kind of like a serial number. However, (librarians, please correct me if I'm wrong) lccn numbers are not used for cataloging and shelving books in a library that used the LC system. Instead there are a series of four or five lines of call numbers that are used instead.

Rather than try to explain it, let me refer you to

http://www.lib.ksu.edu/instructional/understanding lccn/webcall2.html or

...

...

explanation and samples of LC call numbers.

The problem is that koha doesn't currently have adequate fields of the proper type for storing these four or five

...

database (I think there are such fields in the MARC tables, but not in the basic koha tables). I agree that accommodating

...

catalogingsystems is a template issue, but feel

...

fields need to be in place in the database tables first. I had actually emailed the development list on this same issue a couple weeks ago (subject: inflexiblefield types for call numbers).

My recommendation would be that we survey as many knowledgeable librariansas possible to find out how many fields are necessary for storing call numbers under the various systems, what the maximum length of each needs to be, and then add those fields to the database

http://www.hcc.hawaii.edu/education/hcc/library/ca llno.html for some lines of information in the the different that the necessary tables (unless the

...

programmerscould suggest existing fields that can be used). I think if there were four or five flexible fields for storing call number information, then indeedkoha could be adapted to almost any cataloging system by reworking the templates.

Rob

----- Original Message ----- From: "Chris Cormack" <chris@katipo.co.nz> Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2003 1:20 AM Subject: Re: [Koha] More questions - another 2 cents worth

...

We do have an lccn field in the koha database. And you can load data into it, its currently not displaying or searchable yet though. This is a templating issue, im sure we could change it quite fast.

_______________________________________________

...

Koha mailing list Koha@lists.katipo.co.nz

http://lists.katipo.co.nz/mailman/listinfo/koha

...

_______________________________________________ Koha mailing list Koha@lists.katipo.co.nz http://lists.katipo.co.nz/mailman/listinfo/koha

_______________________________________________ Koha mailing list Koha@lists.katipo.co.nz http://lists.katipo.co.nz/mailman/listinfo/koha

------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by: INetU Attention Web Developers & Consultants: Become An INetU Hosting Partner. Refer Dedicated Servers. We Manage Them. You Get 10% Monthly Commission! INetU Dedicated Managed Hosting http://www.inetu.net/partner/index.php _______________________________________________ Koha-devel mailing list

Thanks Ed Sharpe, Archivist for SMECC See the Museum's Web Site at www.smecc.org We are always looking for items to add to the museum's display and ref. library please advise if you have anything we can use. mail: Coury House / SMECC 5802 W. Palmaire Ave. Glendale Az 85301 USA 623-435-1522 CONFIDENZIALE: Questo messaggio e gli eventuali allegati sono confidenziali e riservati. Se vi è stato recapitato per errore e non siete fra i destinatari elencati, siete pregati di darne immediatamente avviso al mittente. Le informazioni contenute non devono essere mostrate ad altri, né utilizzate, memorizzate o copiate in qualsiasi forma. CONFIDENTIAL: This e-mail and any attachments are confidential and may contain reserved information. If you are not one of the named recipients, please notify the sender immediately. Moreover, you should not disclose the contents to any other persons, nor should the information contained be used for any purpose or stored or copied in any form.