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" <[email protected]> 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 > [email protected] > Telephone: 905 575 1212 x3936 > Fax: 905 575 2011 > ________________________________________ > From: [email protected] > [[email protected]] On Behalf Of Justin > Hopkins [[email protected]] > 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 >> [email protected] >> 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.
