[Koha] some thoughts about cataloguing and acquisition (important)

Mon Jan 20 19:13:08 NZDT 2003

hello again

just one clarification... and maybe i seem to contradict myself, but i
feel it's important to add this precision.
when i said that i thought that there should be only one database, i was
thinking only of marc records and how "records for acquisitions" could fit
into a marc-record based koha. thus the thing about a different status
like "on order" indeed.

i was not thinking of the "other" format, i.e. the original format koha
offers as well, which is used in hlt at present. and i do fully agree that
there should be a "complete non marc version", especially for libraries
who wish to keep their data entries simple. there are libraries who have
different needs, and many of them do not have the wish or need to
import/exort records. especially smaller libraries will probably not gain
much by importing data, but more when having a simple cataloguing
procedure as it is the case at present.

in my mind, a library chooses at installation of koha one or the other
format (marc or non-marc) and sticks to it, and a switch to the other
version would mean major changes...

greetings, Regula

 --- "Albert P. Calame" <albert.p.calame at sympatico.ca> wrote: > Greetings
All!
> 
>     I'm always concerned when we start talking about using "basic" or
> "brief" cataloguing records, simply because so often the "quick and
> dirty"
> ends up being the final version - mostly because we have so little time
> to
> take care of fixing things up later.
> 
>     That said, in the systems that I've worked in we usually had
> templates
> for short records and for more complete records. I think that the system
> should be able to allow us to enter acquisitions data directly into the
> MARC
> database, and an "On Order" status, or an "Under Consideration" status
> added
> to the record could be applied so that users searching in OPAC would
> realize
> the items are not available. When the item is received, and the status
> changes, the system would then flag the record for update so that the
> librarian could complete the cataloguing with the item in hand
> (incidentally
> allowing you to fetch an appropriate MARC record for the item online, or
> to
> load the record that you could receive from the vendor if the service is
> available to you.).
> 
>     The system should allow the creation of records that have only a
> certain
> minimum of information: namely, Author (100#a); Title (245#a and b);
> Publication information (260#a,b,and c); Physical Description (300), if
> available; and, standard numbers such as ISBN (020), ISSN (022), and
> LCCN
> (010) when they are available. Of course, the system should allow you to
> make sure the Leader of the record reflects the appropriate type of
> material, and that the fixed field (008) field has the basic information
> in
> it.
> 
>     The final version of the record, after the item is received, would
> add
> the subject access and notes, and all the other pertinent local holding
> information like call number, price, and barcode.  All this should be
> recorded in MARC format, and I concur with others who have written that
> the
> system should allow for the entry of all 1000 MARC fields.  If records
> are
> stored in this structure, there is no reason why they can't be displayed
> any
> way the user desires.  The data entry templates can use the full MARC
> designations for those who use them, but a more simple interface could
> easily be prepared that would insert the data into the appropriate MARC
> field or subfield, supplying appropriate punctuation automatically - or
> "automagically" as a fellow librarian says!
> 
>     I think it is wasteful to have records in two different formats -
> one
> MARC and one non-MARC.  It means that if you want to move information
> from
> one to the other that you have to convert the data. Storing the
> information
> in one standard format makes much more sense to me.  In this I strongly
> agree with Regula!
> 
> Regards,
> Al Calame
> 
> Librarian-at-Large,
> Montreal, Québec, Canada
> 
> 514-745-3424
> albert.p.calame at sympatico.ca
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Regula Sebastiao" <reseba at yahoo.com>
> To: <koha at lists.katipo.co.nz>
> Cc: "Joshua Ferraro" <jferraro at alma.athenscounty.lib.oh.us>
> Sent: Sunday, January 19, 2003 6:20 PM
> Subject: Re: [Koha] some thoughts about cataloguing and acquisition
> (important)
> 
> 
> > Hi again
> >
> > my question was aimed to know wheter a "basic" record for
> acquisitions,
> > e.g., could be in a kind-of-reduced MARC-format. ordering information
> is
> > often incomplete and thus not all required fields of a MARC record can
> be
> > filled in.
> >
> > in the systems I know, this problem is solved in various ways. either
> by
> > having incomplete records (non-MARC) in a separate database or an
> > incomplete MARC-record signalled as such with "record status". one
> such
> > status could be "acquisition-incomplete" e.g. another one would be
> deleted
> > notice etc.
> >
> > and i absolutely do agree that if MARC is used, then ALL MARC fields
> > should be possible in the database. and the required-optional fields
> > should be respected for a full record. but there should be
> possibilities
> > for not complete records.
> >
> > personally, i think that there should be one and only one database
> where
> > all bibliographic-"minded" records - ev. with different statuses -
> should
> > be stored.
> >
> > Regula Sebastiao
> >
> >
> >
> > --- Joshua Ferraro <jferraro at alma.athenscounty.lib.oh.us> wrote: > On
> Fri,
> > Jan 17, 2003 at 12:16:59AM +0000, Regula Sebastiao wrote:
> > >
> > > > - 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?
> > >
> > > I understand the question to be this: why should Koha preserve full
> MARC
> > > records when both the format of the records is archaic (sorry you
> MARC
> > > fans) and only some of the fields are used; can't we simply build a
> > > program to grab the standard MARC fields and stick thim into the
> Koha
> > > database?  If this is your question I can take a stab at it.
> > >
> > > One major problem that I see with not having all the MARC fields in
> the
> > > Koha database arises when libraries try to move data: many libraries
> are
> > > used to using the extra fields in MARC to document things that MARC
> did
> > > not contain standard fields for.  If Koha does not have the capacity
> to
> > > retrieve all the MARC fields from a record, libraries that use the
> extra
> > > fields in MARC will have difficulty transfering their data from the
> old
> > > system to the new one.  Not storing the complete MARC record could
> turn
> > > out to be a severe limitation.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > __________________________________________________
> > 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 at lists.katipo.co.nz
> > http://lists.katipo.co.nz/mailman/listinfo/koha
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Koha mailing list
> Koha at lists.katipo.co.nz
> http://lists.katipo.co.nz/mailman/listinfo/koha 

__________________________________________________
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