15 messages in org.georgialibraries.list.open-ils-devRe: [OPEN-ILS-DEV] Monograph Parts| From | Sent On | Attachments |
|---|---|---|
| Mike Rylander | Feb 15, 2011 12:08 pm |  .pdf |
| Dan Wells | Feb 15, 2011 1:35 pm | |
| Hardy, Elaine | Feb 16, 2011 6:28 am | |
| Mike Rylander | Feb 16, 2011 9:36 am | |
| Mike Rylander | Feb 16, 2011 9:55 am | |
| Hardy, Elaine | Feb 16, 2011 10:44 am | |
| Mike Rylander | Feb 16, 2011 12:09 pm | |
| Dan Wells | Feb 16, 2011 1:43 pm | |
| Mike Rylander | Feb 16, 2011 5:27 pm | |
| Hardy, Elaine | Feb 17, 2011 11:14 am | |
| Hardy, Elaine | Feb 17, 2011 11:34 am | |
| Mike Rylander | Feb 17, 2011 1:05 pm | |
| Dan Wells | Feb 17, 2011 3:53 pm | |
| Mike Rylander | Feb 18, 2011 8:53 am | |
| Hardy, Elaine | Feb 21, 2011 11:03 am |
| Subject: | Re: [OPEN-ILS-DEV] Monograph Parts | |
|---|---|---|
| From: | Hardy, Elaine (eha...@georgialibraries.org) | |
| Date: | Feb 17, 2011 11:34:33 am | |
| List: | org.georgialibraries.list.open-ils-dev | |
Yes -- PINES libraries take different approaches to mutivolume sets. We do find the differences in approach to multivols primarily in DVDs and audiobooks and not in print material. We actively discourage creating separate bib records for a multipart-set or serial but libraries can and do attach their holdings in a variety of ways. Some libraries separate out multi DVD sets and circulate one at a time, others may package them in a container that houses them all and circulate them as one piece. There are advantages to both ways; but, I think we would find more libraries processing them individually if placing holds on specific volumes became easier.
Elaine
J. Elaine Hardy PINES Bibliographic Projects and Metadata Manager Georgia Public Library Service, A Unit of the University System of Georgia 1800 Century Place, Suite 150 Atlanta, Ga. 30345-4304 404.235-7128 404.235-7201, fax
eha...@georgialibraries.org www.georgialibraries.org http://www.georgialibraries.org/pines/
Also, I think this quote from Elaine deserves a bit more attention:
I'm particularly interested in how this would function in a consortium like PINES where different libraries might process a multipart set differently. For example, one library might process and circulate a 3 part DVD set as one item, where another might put each in a separate container with a separate barcode.
If we want the complete-set copy from Library A to conclusively fulfill a P-level hold from Library B, we will want to allow multiple parts per copy. Or am I missing something?
You're not ... I interpreted what she was saying differently (that different libraries would be /able/ to spit records along different lines), and I see what you're saying. We could allow a copy to belong to multiple parts (it's a trivial change to the schema), but it would be the responsibility of the cataloger with the item in hand to make sure that the copy is in the appropriate parts -- not hard, except that some parts may not exist yet. ;) (And, of course, this existential problem exists no matter the scheme*.)
Converting from one part per copy to multiple is simple at the database level, and would be nearly trivial in higher level code, but until we have use in the field I think it's a solution without a problem, because of the cataloging overhead of trying to keep every copy current across all parts as parts are added to a bib when each library adds their own subdivision scheme for the bib. For that reason I left it out explicitly. (*It also invites the desire for a "collection of parts" concept that is a much bigger, and more importantly, controversial project. That too, though, is not barred from the future with the design as it stands.)