Re: Re: [Koha] Is there a language field in mysql tables?
Salvete! There's an interesting thread on the American Government Documents listserv right now on OPAC displays, and I figured it might cause interesting discussion here. I have forwarded one of the messages below. I am aware that any change to the OPAC would probably involve an awful lot of work, and I try very hard not to beg and plead for anything I'm not paying for, so please don't take this as an immediate request for implementation, but rather something to gnaw on as we all try and figure out what configuration suits our patrons. Cheers, Brooke @ Hinsdale MA I am not a cataloger. But I'm intrigued by the interplay between the (very important) issue of OPAC display that Barbie focused in on and on the draft document's question about FRBR-related consequences of multiple records. It seems to me that describing each item or instance (I don't remember the exact FRBR nomenclature) makes sense, provided that those records can be grouped into a work-level record for display so that (in my understanding) we would get one hit for Statistical Abstract of the United States with four or five instance records hanging off of it, one each for web, cd, micro, print and (locally for us) one for a commercial reprint and several for commercial online versions. My patrons would love to find ONE record that describes "The Starr Report" or "9/11 Commission Report" and includes a list of all the instances of that work, regardless of format (or publisher). Similarly, if I had one "work" record to display for Code of Federal Regulations that somehow had my print, fiche and electronic holdings attached to it, swell. I don't know what FRBR-type displays will require -- it seems like separate records per format -- but workflow issues aside, eventually getting all the instances of a work grouped into one display (regardless of how man records underlie the display) would be my ideal OPAC. As far as I know, our ILS (III) won't do this, at least not yet. If Aleph handles FRBR-ized display, cool. (I do agree with Barbie that GPO cataloger time is valuable, so lower-level records for other formats makes sense to me, as long as one format gets the full treatment.) I'd love to spend some time at Spring FDLP discussing this. Scott
The OPAC display described here is very much the way the "original" (pre-MARC) Koha displayed search results. Proof once again that Chris and Katipo were ahead of their time! Stephen BWS Johnson said:
Salvete!
There's an interesting thread on the American Government Documents listserv right now on OPAC displays, and I figured it might cause interesting discussion here. I have forwarded one of the messages below. I am aware that any change to the OPAC would probably involve an awful lot of work, and I try very hard not to beg and plead for anything I'm not paying for, so please don't take this as an immediate request for implementation, but rather something to gnaw on as we all try and figure out what configuration suits our patrons.
Cheers, Brooke @ Hinsdale MA
I am not a cataloger.
But I'm intrigued by the interplay between the (very important) issue of OPAC display that Barbie focused in on and on the draft document's question about FRBR-related consequences of multiple records. It seems to me that describing each item or instance (I don't remember the exact FRBR nomenclature) makes sense, provided that those records can be grouped into a work-level record for display so that (in my understanding) we would get one hit for Statistical Abstract of the United States with four or five instance records hanging off of it, one each for web, cd, micro, print and (locally for us) one for a commercial reprint and several for commercial online versions.
My patrons would love to find ONE record that describes "The Starr Report" or "9/11 Commission Report" and includes a list of all the instances of that work, regardless of format (or publisher). Similarly, if I had one "work" record to display for Code of Federal Regulations that somehow had my print, fiche and electronic holdings attached to it, swell.
I don't know what FRBR-type displays will require -- it seems like separate records per format -- but workflow issues aside, eventually getting all the instances of a work grouped into one display (regardless of how man records underlie the display) would be my ideal OPAC. As far as I know, our ILS (III) won't do this, at least not yet. If Aleph handles FRBR-ized display, cool.
(I do agree with Barbie that GPO cataloger time is valuable, so lower-level records for other formats makes sense to me, as long as one format gets the full treatment.)
I'd love to spend some time at Spring FDLP discussing this. Scott
-- Stephen Hedges Skemotah Solutions, USA www.skemotah.com -- shedges@skemotah.com
hi
The OPAC display described here is very much the way the "original" (pre-MARC) Koha displayed search results. Proof once again that Chris and Katipo were ahead of their time!
Yep that is how the original Koha works (1.2.3) there is one biblio, with several groups, and then items. (Stupid names, but there ya go :-) I'm pretty attached to it as a model. Cheers Rachel
Stephen
BWS Johnson said:
Salvete!
There's an interesting thread on the American Government Documents listserv right now on OPAC displays, and I figured it might cause interesting discussion here. I have forwarded one of the messages below. I am aware that any change to the OPAC would probably involve an awful lot of work, and I try very hard not to beg and plead for anything I'm not paying for, so please don't take this as an immediate request for implementation, but rather something to gnaw on as we all try and figure out what configuration suits our patrons.
Cheers, Brooke @ Hinsdale MA
I am not a cataloger.
But I'm intrigued by the interplay between the (very important) issue of OPAC display that Barbie focused in on and on the draft document's question about FRBR-related consequences of multiple records. It seems to me that describing each item or instance (I don't remember the exact FRBR nomenclature) makes sense, provided that those records can be grouped into a work-level record for display so that (in my understanding) we would get one hit for Statistical Abstract of the United States with four or five instance records hanging off of it, one each for web, cd, micro, print and (locally for us) one for a commercial reprint and several for commercial online versions.
My patrons would love to find ONE record that describes "The Starr Report" or "9/11 Commission Report" and includes a list of all the instances of that work, regardless of format (or publisher). Similarly, if I had one "work" record to display for Code of Federal Regulations that somehow had my print, fiche and electronic holdings attached to it, swell.
I don't know what FRBR-type displays will require -- it seems like separate records per format -- but workflow issues aside, eventually getting all the instances of a work grouped into one display (regardless of how man records underlie the display) would be my ideal OPAC. As far as I know, our ILS (III) won't do this, at least not yet. If Aleph handles FRBR-ized display, cool.
(I do agree with Barbie that GPO cataloger time is valuable, so lower-level records for other formats makes sense to me, as long as one format gets the full treatment.)
I'd love to spend some time at Spring FDLP discussing this. Scott
On Tue, Feb 08, 2005 at 09:20:50AM +1300, Rachel Hamilton-Williams said:
hi
The OPAC display described here is very much the way the "original" (pre-MARC) Koha displayed search results. Proof once again that Chris and Katipo were ahead of their time!
Yep that is how the original Koha works (1.2.3) there is one biblio, with several groups, and then items. (Stupid names, but there ya go :-)
I'm pretty attached to it as a model.
Gotta give some credit here to Olwen as well. Having an old school database programmer on your team sure helps you get a nice normalised database. Which is what the biblio->biblioitems->items split achieved. No redundant data (well minimal). There is no reason this cant still work eg http://photos.bigballofwax.co.nz/gallery/kohaphotos/detail?full=1 The data is all there (this is 2.2.0) just need to tweak the opac templates a bit to get it to display. Chris -- Chris Cormack Programmer 027 4500 789 Katipo Communications Ltd chris@katipo.co.nz www.katipo.co.nz
Hi
My patrons would love to find ONE record that describes "The Starr Report" or "9/11 Commission Report" and includes a list of all the instances of that work, regardless of format (or publisher). Similarly, if I had one "work" record to display for Code of Federal Regulations that somehow had my print, fiche and electronic holdings attached to it, swell.
Koha 1.2.3 facilitated doing this if you wanted to - you would have a more restricted "biblio" record which contained only the information that (from the public POV :-) identified this work - title, author, subjects, abstract. You then got a group (basically format) record which was the stuff that could change, without it being fundamentally a different "work" eg publisher, isbn, format/itemtype, class etc. Then you got the item record which has the info specific to a particular item. I think FRBR might be a bit more "general" than this - in that version of Koha the items were all the same work, but in different formats - I think that FRBR might be wanting to group together items which are not "the same" even in my loose definition of the same :-)
I don't know what FRBR-type displays will require -- it seems like separate records per format -- but workflow issues aside, eventually getting all the instances of a work grouped into one display (regardless of how man records underlie the display) would be my ideal OPAC. As far as I know, our ILS (III) won't do this, at least not yet. If Aleph handles FRBR-ized display, cool.
Well as HLT have this already (with their koha) - I'd direct you to a display to see, but I think their site is temporarily indisposed as they upgrade their interent connection - I suspect one of the challenges we will face is how to "get back" that functionality in koha 2.2 Cheers Rachel
participants (4)
-
BWS Johnson -
Chris Cormack -
Rachel Hamilton-Williams -
Stephen Hedges