On 6/10/2015 12:54 PM, Karen Coyle wrote:
> On 6/9/15 6:55 PM, J. McRee Elrod wrote:
>> For example: since along with unit name it tells you what
>> equipment is needed, 538 is helpful just after collation (as opposed t
>> the redundant new 34X fields), but has a later number; 506 (limitation
>> on access) and 540 (limitation on use) should be side by side, but are
>> not so numbered.
> This doesn't seem difficult if the notes are each given a unique name.
> In fact, this display is as plausible in MARC as it is in BIBFRAME.
> There's no reason for display to be based on MARC tag order, nor for the
> 34x fields to display at all. So the question remains: are there notes
> that are now being given the property bf:note that need to have a unique
> name? And I also wonder what displays of notes are being used by the BF
> early implementers.
An additional concern is to look at it from the viewpoint of the users,
who more and more often see a "single search box" that searches at once
everything that is available to them through their library: all of the
catalogs, article indexes and other resources--including full text. This
is what the public says it wants, so libraries should be providing it.
Those other records (and full-text results) will easily overwhelm our
Already, with one of those "single search box" results, how a particular
record will appear is practically impossible to predict because odds
are, what the user will see will not be created by a librarian, or
follow RDA, or AACR2, or MARC or Bibframe. Even in Worldcat, it has
become difficult simply to predict what language the notes of any
particular record will be cataloged in, what language/types of headings
you will encounter, or if you will encounter anything at all besides
simple author/title/publisher. Of course, any tools that libraries
create based on linked data will also bring all and sundry types of data
In this scenario, order of notes truly becomes academic. In my
experience, this is not such a loss because the public spends little
time reading bibliographic records and what they do read, they scan and
never read thoroughly. The moment something looks interesting, they
immediately look at the call number or click on a link and whoosh! Off
they go, leaving the catalog to go to the item and they never look back.
They return only if the book on the shelf (and the other books around
the book they looked for) or the link (and the links they find in the
web document) do not give them what they want.
This is understandable. Of course, people want to spend their time with
the actual resources and not reading "bibliographical essays" as one old
librarian put it (Ernest Richardson). For them, the catalog record has
as much meaning as the road sign on the side of the road that says
"Albuquerque 70 miles. Take Next Right". The sign had better be right,
but when you drive by, it's forgotten. Unless it's seriously wrong.
What is it that people want from a catalog? We can only assume that it
has changed radically in the last 20 years and will continue to do so
even more radically in the future. That is the real question and can
only be discovered through research and studies.
James Weinheimer [log in to unmask]
First Thus http://blog.jweinheimer.net
First Thus Facebook Page https://www.facebook.com/FirstThus
Personal Facebook Page https://www.facebook.com/james.weinheimer.35
Cooperative Cataloging Rules http://sites.google.com/site/opencatalogingrules/
Cataloging Matters Podcasts http://blog.jweinheimer.net/cataloging-matters-podcasts
The Library Herald http://libnews.jweinheimer.net/
[delay +30 days]