I enjoyed reading Regula's message, and thought it made some very good points. I agree that the traditional separation between cataloging and acquisitions is not going to be very productive in the future, though I think it will be a long time before a significant number of libraries realize this and change their work habits. So perhaps treating catalging and acquisitions as one (software) process is a good approach for programmers. But I also think that presenting the two as separate interfaces to the librarian is important, since it will be years before most libraries can reorganize their staff to combine the (human) acquisitions process seamlessly with the (human) cataloging process. Stephen Hedges Nelsonville Public Library

First of all: a short introduction of myself. I'm a Swiss librarian, interested in different library systems, and am presently co-writing part of the Koha documentation. I've been working with different library systems in the past, both commercial and custom made, but am not currently working in a library.

Following the discussion on the koha list on acquisitions and cataloguing with a lot of interest some thoughts and questions popped up for me.

Historically, in libraries, acquisitions and cataloguing have been distinct processes, often employing personnel with different qualtifications. This was the case mainly in the paper age, but also in "early" automation, as often acquisitions was added onto an ILS only later. But Koha offers up till now a different approach.

Koha uses a somehow linear process for entering the document data. First a document is ordered, and therefor linked to the supplier data. At receiving, the bibliographic data can be completed, and group and item information added. And the cataloguing is complete. There is no distinction of acquisitions and cataloguing in Koha, cataloguing is "modifying an acquisition's record".

So for me, there are a few questions, I'd like to throw into the discussion: - what arguments are against keeping Koha "different" and have a "document treatment unity" comprehending acquisitions and cataloguing? - is it really necessary to separate cataloguing from acquisitions - provided that acquisitions allows "complete entering of the data = cataloguing" according to the format chosen (marc or non-marc)? - does a marc-record necessarily need to be complete? or is it possible to have something like a "temporary marc record" which has only a few marc field used, and still have every record in the same bibliotable? - if acquisitions and cataloguing are going to be separated - is there really a need to have a second copy of the database? As I fully agree that the user interrogating the catalogue should be shown wheter a book is on order or bought and available in the library, there should be done sth about it. But I think that this could be treated in adding a "status" to the document like "on order", "in the library - but in process", "on the shelf", "borrowed" etc. In other words: if separation is needed, shouldn't there be just separate "interfaces" for acquisitions and cataloguing - both using the one and only one database? - is it possible to differentiate by "record status"only?

Personally, I'd rather have a ILS which unites acquisitions and cataloguing, keeping the system as simple as possible, for librarians and members, even if this needs some reorganisation in a library, e.g. employing personnel in acquisitions who knows how to catalogue. And concentrating all efforts in other parts of the system.

Regula Sebastiao

__________________________________________________

Do You Yahoo!? Everything you'll ever need on one web page from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts http://uk.my.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ Koha mailing list Koha@lists.katipo.co.nz http://lists.katipo.co.nz/mailman/listinfo/koha