[OPEN-ILS-GENERAL] TPAC question: getting "ebooks" as an option in formats

[Thomas Berezansky]

I just want to throw a quick note out:

Any indexed information in the repeatable entries (006/007) is not  
going to index all values when there are multiple. Evergreen currently  
only indexes a single value.

Grabbing the most common point we see this at: vr_format lives in the  
007, I believe. Thus if you have DVD and Blu-ray 007 entries only one  
of the two will be indexed, and thus the record will only show up for  
one of those vr_formats when searching.

This likely complicates things.

Thomas Berezansky
Merrimack Valley Library Consortium


Quoting Dan Wells <dbw2 at calvin.edu>:

> Hello all,
>
> This is a pretty complex subject, and anyone interested in diving in  
> full on should probably start here:
>
> http://www.loc.gov/marc/ldr06guide.html
>
> In all, there are at least five major factors which all relate to  
> describe the "type" of an item.  They are:
>
> Leader/06 - Type of record
> Leader/07 - Bibliographic level
> Field 008 - Fixed-Length Data Elements
> Field 006 (repeatable) - Fixed-Length Data Elements - Additional  
> Material Characteristics
> Field 007 (repeatable) - Physical Description Fixed Field
>
> Notice that I listed 008 before 006.  This is not an accident, as  
> despite their numbering, 006 is subsequent to 008.  It actually  
> contains the same data as positions 18-34, which is the material  
> specific portion of the 008, and was added later to make up for the  
> fact that 008 is not repeatable.
>
> There is an interplay between these fields such that the meaning  
> changes depending on the content of the more primary fields.
>
> To get more to the point, my understanding is that setting Leader/06  
> to 'm' for cataloging is a last resort for records which cannot be  
> "better" described at a different level, which means that ebooks are  
> supposed to use 'a' (as yours do), and changing them to 'm' would be  
> considered (by some, anyway) to not follow best practices.  As Dan  
> Scott points out, there are other places (008/006) where the  
> cataloger can indicate the electronic-ness of the thing, so  
> Leader/06 is more about the "essence" of the thing.
>
> I think! :)
>
> It would probably be wise to work with the catalogers here and  
> create a unified "cheat sheet" which would be representative of an  
> official Evergreen understanding of best practices for the most  
> common types of items.  Without something we can agree on, the  
> developers cannot have a unified target, and we will either end up  
> with something excessively complex (by simply exposing these  
> innards), something watered-down (by simply hiding these innards),  
> or an endless tug-of-war as we write code which reflects local  
> practices or (worse) our own understanding.
>
> Dan
>
>>>> On 8/3/2012 at 11:19 AM, "Soulliere, Robert"
> <robert.soulliere at mohawkcollege.ca> wrote:
>> Hi Justin,
>>
>> Exactly right about that. If this method is OK, we will be investigating
>> extending the usefulness of format by extracting and differentiating some of
>> those "computer file" formats into unique format codes. I am worried about
>> how far we can get into "creative cataloguing" before we are  considered
>> rogue librarians or mangle our system. ;-)
>>
>> Technically, Evergreen gives us the power, but should we use it?
>>
>> Regards,
>> Robert
>>
>>
>> Robert Soulliere, BA (Hons), MLIS
>> Systems Librarian
>> Mohawk College Library
>> robert.soulliere at mohawkcollege.ca
>> Telephone: 905 575 1212 x3936
>> Fax: 905 575 2011
>> ________________________________________
>> From: open-ils-general-bounces at list.georgialibraries.org
>> [open-ils-general-bounces at list.georgialibraries.org] On Behalf Of Justin
>> Hopkins [justin at mobiusconsortium.org]
>> Sent: August 3, 2012 11:05 AM
>> To: Evergreen Discussion Group
>> Subject: Re: [OPEN-ILS-GENERAL] TPAC question: getting "ebooks" as an option
>>  in formats
>>
>> Just chiming in to say that I'm also interested in this topic. The LOC marc
>> standard would seem to indicate that 'm' for computer file (I believe the
>> label in EG is "electronic resource") is the right code, but that doesn't
>> seem specific enough to be useful.
>>
>>
>> On Aug 3, 2012, at 9:17 AM, Soulliere, Robert wrote:
>>
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> We are investigating a method to get "ebooks" as a format option  
>>> in our TPAC
>> and I wonder if I could get some feedback on whether this is a good  
>> way to do
>> this. Here is the method we are investigating:
>>>
>>> 1. Add a unique "type" entry using the MARC Code Value Map in the staff
>> client.
>>>
>>> 2. Edit the Leader field of our electronic books to indicate that they are
>> in the new "ebook" type. Currently most use "a" to indicate a book.
>>>
>>> I had a few question about this method:
>>>
>>> 1. Is there a better way to add the ebook as a format search option?
>>>
>>> 2. Are there potential dangers for us using this method? e.g. issues with
>> future upgrades.
>>>
>>> 3. Is this kosher from a cataloguing perspective?
>>>
>>> This works technically, but want to see if this is the best way.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Robert
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Robert Soulliere, BA (Hons), MLIS
>>> Systems Librarian
>>> Mohawk College Library
>>> robert.soulliere at mohawkcollege.ca
>>> Telephone: 905 575 1212 x3936
>>> Fax: 905 575 2011
>>>
>>> This E-mail contains privileged and confidential information intended
>>> only for the individual or entity named in the message.  If the reader
>>> of this message is not the intended recipient, or the agent responsible
>>> to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that
>>> any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication
>>> is prohibited.  If this communication was received in error, please
>>> notify the sender by reply E-mail immediately, and delete and destroy
>>> the original message.
>>
>>
>> This E-mail contains privileged and confidential information intended
>> only for the individual or entity named in the message.  If the reader
>> of this message is not the intended recipient, or the agent responsible
>> to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that
>> any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication
>> is prohibited.  If this communication was received in error, please
>> notify the sender by reply E-mail immediately, and delete and destroy
>> the original message.
>