RDA is starting to impinge on things October 13, 2012
Posted by Mia in CLUES/WebPAC, Resource Description and Access.comments closed
A new MARC field snuck up on me — the 264. The problem with this field is that it was only invented in 2011 to handle new RDA rules for interpreting imprint information that can’t be accomodated by the existing 260. Quoting from MARC bibliographic (emphasis mine):
Information in field 264 is similar to information in field 260 (Publication, Distribution, etc. (Imprint)). Field 264 is useful for cases where the content standard or institutional policies make a distinction between functions
Huh? A field [for handling imprint], which is similar to an already existing field [which handles imprint], only different? This ‘definition’ really eludes me, I must admit, but I’ll leave it to others to interpret.
Records started arriving with a 264 indicator 1, not a 260, so naturally no imprint information was displaying to the public. Rules for handling the import and display of the 260 (like on webpub.def) didn’t include the 264 because the field hadn’t existed previously. None of our MARC load tables knew about this field.
I’m surprised that this field came in under the radar. I am wondering how much relevance rules that may look at the — guess what? — 260|c field need to be modified. I can’t see how that can be avoided.
And why this change now, when the MARC format is on its way out? The whole thing particularly mystifies me, since many of the date complexities are only applicable to physical entities — entities which are a diminishing proportion of our collection.
Release 2009B 1.3 Upgrade success July 5, 2011
Posted by Mia in cataloguing, Circulation, CLUES/WebPAC, Collections, ERM Module.comments closed
Successfully upgraded to r 2009B this morning in record time, with minimal disruption. Woot! A few glitches to be sure, but otherwise, quite smooth for day 1. The example set is looking pretty good, I must say, and things are being stabilized.
The actual library workstations need to be upgraded and re-imaged, but that is apparently being scheduled in as-we-speak. As we cycle through the staff modules, I expect will be some issues that will start cropping up.
Onwards and upwards.
Book covers August 5, 2010
Posted by Mia in CLUES/WebPAC.comments closed
I loathe that ISBNs for ebooks do not link through Syndetics to an associated ebook cover.
Here’s an example of a title: British on the Costa del sol which has no less than 4 ISBNs in the associated marc record. Hop over to MyiLibrary, there is a nice cover display, seemingly associated with these ISBNs which display at MyiLibrary:
MIL EAN/ISBN: 9786610109357
Pub e-EAN/ISBN: 9780203495407
Back in the marc record, I do have the first 13-digit ISBN, not the second.
i 020 9786610109357 –>> EAN MyILibrary ISBN
i 020 |z1841420476 (Paper)
i 020 |z1841420484 (Cloth)
i 020 |z0203495403 (electronic bk.)
Syndetics matches on the lead ISBN, so whatever ISBN is in that position gets picked up.
Now, if my lead ISBN remains 9786610109357 (which is apparently the MyiLibrary EAN), there will be no cover display through Syndetics.
By shunting the other 202’s into the lead position, there will be different results from Syndetics:
- 13-digit MyiL ISBN: No hit at Syndetics.
- 10-digit electronic book ISBN retrieves a hit at syndetics with a 2 sentence summary. There is no cover. There is no TOC.
- cloth ISBN retrieves a hit at syndetics with a different cover, a different summary, and a TOC.
- paper ISBN retrieves a hit at Syndetics whose cover matches the MyiLibrary edition. There is a TOC, plus a summary.
Finally, though I didn’t have the 13-digit PUB EAN ISBN in my marc record, I add it in for fun, and check Syndetics.
The 13-digit PUB EAN seems to match the 10-digit electronic book ISBN: I get a hit with the two-sentence summary which lacks a cover and lacks the TOCs.
A book cover, is an essential part of a book, electronic or otherwise. We should be knocking ourselves out in order to display it. If we can’t make a match, we should display one of its other edition covers, explaining that we’ve done so (like Amazon).
Upgradation July 7, 2009
Posted by Mia in CLUES/WebPAC.comments closed
Quite a few upgrade milestones this past month:
- SIS email project went pretty smoothly, and we are transitioned over. Now we get updates directly from the portal, on-demand, for just the records that are changing. Plus, the email address updating process will be way more transparent for users. A huge improvement!
- r2007 is proving to have quite a few immediate improvements that we’re enabling (Forgot your PIN being one of the earliest that we have in testing; better custom messages, etc.).
Upgrade survivor June 19, 2009
Posted by Mia in Circulation, CLUES/WebPAC, Collections.comments closed
The system software upgrade to Rel. 2007 zipped along on Monday and was somewhat smoother than anticipated! By Wednesday, we were discovering new capabilities that could be quickly integrated into normal routines – so all told, pleasantly surprised at the relative ease, compared with the last upgrade.
By mid-week I was able to turn back to the Serials Solutions record reload. It was an opportunity to tweak the custom load specs and the results are looking pretty solid now. There is still an outstanding question about why the incoming marc data from SerSol has reorganized multiple occurrences of the same tag, but I anticipate that SerSol will be able to address that. I want to get the reload done early next week and be done with it. I want to move onto the coverage load, which could be tricky now that we’re on the new Release and things work a bit differently there.
As far as the SIS email patron load goes, those specs also need another check next week and more testing, but I think they’re in good shape. That switch is one that is sensitive in terms of the timing of the sequences, but we have flexibility there to do as many requests for updates as required.
Subscribe to Libtools
Libtools 