[Koha] inconsistencies in acquisition.simple process

[baljkas at mb.sympatico.ca]

Thursday, September 25, 2003	 18:25 CDT

Hi, Chris,

Regarding your comment in answer to Pierre's inquiry

>biblio has things like title, author, copyright date etc.
>biblioitems has number of pages, itemtype, call number etc items has
>accession date, location (which branch etc) 
>
>So the potential is you should have 1 biblio, 1 or many biblioitems,
>and 1 or many items.
>
>Lets take The Fellowship of the ring.
>We might have 2 copies of the DVD 3 of the book, and 1 large print
>version say.

>So we would have 1 biblio.
>3 biblioitems (1 for dvd, 1 for fiction, 1 for large print)
>and 6 items (2 attached to the dvd biblioitem, 3 attached to the
>fiction and 1 to the large print)
>
>So that's how the internal storage works.
>
>Of course we can make it appear to the librarian or the borrower as if
>we have 1 biblio, and 6 items ie abstract over the biblioitems.
 
>But I think the form has been designed in a way so that it looks like
>we'd need 3 biblios for the above example .. which is not right.

That's where you have things wrong my friend. Beyond the MARC stuff, which
I know is not your responsibility or interest, whatever library advice you
are getting is WRONG.

*** Three different items do require three different records. ***

You have three different physical manifestations of a work, which, if we
are still using AACR2R rules -- which are the standard for the anglophone
library world ascribed to and endorsed by your National Library as well as
those of the Australia, Canada, the United Kingdom and the United State --
the RULES require three different records.

The biblio level that you all wisely created acts like an authority record,
pulling together different manifestations of a work, because, God only
knows what the patron might actually want. But you have to remember that
that's all it should do then.

As a pure matter of what is correct, 3 different types of item (book, DVD,
large print book) require 3 different records, which would have slightly
different data and different MARC coding. If you want to keep the biblio
level, then work should begin on making that into the core of the
AUTHORITIES for the system (used forms, cross-references, see also's etc.).


As a small aside, different ***editions*** of the same work should also
have separate records. Only multiple copies of the same item should be
bound in together by some kind of holdings data.

And to forestall the FRBR people, please realise that most people are not
rushing headlong to embracing that different perspective: most of us are
quite content with AACR2R and will be for some time to come.

Thanks for letting me vent again, Chris.

Cheers,
Steven F. Baljkas
library tech at large
Koha neophyte
Winnipeg, MB, CANADA