I agree - now we are using M21 for current cataloguing, we use 245 + 4xx
if each part has a distinctive title; otherwise 245 + 505. But you can't
know when converting which would be the best option for each record, so
we ended up migrating existing multi-part works with subfields n and p.
This leaves you with the job of tidying up when the first few parts in a
multi-part work have been converted (and therefore have subfields n and
p) and you then acquire later parts which you catalogue either with
options 2 or 3 - then do you go back and re-catalogue the earlier parts
so the work is consistent as a whole? We have tried to do so, as we
determined not to carry on using subfields n and p, as not being
standard M21. But it can be a bind, when it involves lots of editing and
fiddling about - and I believe is more honoured in the breach than the
observance by hard-pressed cataloguers, so the inconsistency is only
perpetuated.
Also, be aware (and depending on what system you use) that where you
adopt option 2, whether in retrospective conversion or current
cataloguing, your LMS may expect all items attached to a work to be
identical (it is sort of logical!) and therefore expect that you will
have just one "item" which represents the whole set. This doesn't work
if you want to issue the parts separately, but if you add each part as a
separate item, it may then be impossible to reserve just one part (and
not the others). For example - if you attach parts 1, 2 and 3 of a
spoken language course to a single work, you may be unable to reserve
Part 1 alone. It can also screw your management information - do you
have one copy of the multi-part work described in the bib record, or
three?
I also agree with the rest that careful work ahead of conversion (to
identify and, as far as possible, rectify the errors which all databases
have) is easier and more economic than trying to sort them out
afterwards.
Bon voyage!
Heather Jardine
City of London Libraries.
-----Original Message-----
From: Bibliographic standards in UK libraries
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Andrew Coburn SLBS LY LS
Sent: 09 September 2008 08:56
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: UKMARC to MARC21 conversion
Hannah
I would only add to the foregoing that (unless you believe your past
cataloguers were nigh on perfect) you might want to try and get a list
of fields and subfields that are used in your current database and check
out the ones that only appear a couple of times or don't actually exist
in UKMARC. We did that and were able to correct a lot of stuff that
should never have been there and would not have converted sensibly.
On 248 I agree with everyone else.
Andrew Coburn
Acquisitions & Cataloguing Manager
Essex Libraries
Adults, Health and Community Wellbeing
Essex County Council
Goldlay Gardens
tel. 01245 244957
01245 284981 ext 255
minicom 01245 244966
ECC ednet 35255
-----Original Message-----
From: Bibliographic standards in UK libraries
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Danskin, Alan
Sent: 09 September 2008 08:21
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: UKMARC to MARC21 conversion
Hannah,
I endorse what Hugh and Michael have said. Option 1 is the simplest and
most consistent. We decided that options 2 and 3 could not be applied
with any consistency. The downside to option 1 is that the conversion
results in a cut off between current and legacy multiparts. You will
have to instruct staff what to do when processing a new volume for a
legacy multipart. Do you recatalogue the whole set? Follow the legacy
pattern (245 n & p) or catalogue as a single volume?
The only advice I have, is make sure you know what elements and
subfields you have in your database. The mapping may be an opportunity
to do some clean up. In any case, have a default location such as 887
where you can map stuff that isn't recognised and still retain its
structure. Finally, test the conversion thoroughly before going live
with it.
Alan
Alan Danskin
Data Quality & Authority Control Manager, British Library Boston Spa,
Wetherby, West Yorkshire
LS23 7BQ
United Kingdom
Tel. +44 (0)1937 546669
Fax. +44 (0)1937 546979
[log in to unmask]
-----Original Message-----
From: Bibliographic standards in UK libraries
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Hugh Taylor
Sent: 09 September 2008 08:02
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: UKMARC to MARC21 conversion
Hannah,
I would support everything Michael said. Apart from the errors, the
biggest difficulty you'll have to face is when there are statements of
responsibility in both UKMARC 245 and 248. Whatever else, you don't want
to lose the relationships between the various elements, even if the end
result is "ugly" in MARC 21 terms.
One note of caution, based on our own experience back in 2002. You will
need to drill into the minds of your staff that the resulting
construction is only infrequently going to be appropriate for future
cataloguing. As with so many things, simply seeing so many examples in
your newly-converted database will encourage people to think this is a
pattern that can simply be copied. They need to go back to the rules to
think about what it is they're describing and work out for themselves
what this means in AACR2 terms before deciding how that maps to MARC 21.
Don't start with the MARC 21 and divine the rationale from that! We
found that the most difficult thing of all (perhaps because it involved
more people than writing and testing the conversion spec).
Hugh
--
Hugh Taylor
Head, Collection Development and Description Cambridge University
Library West Road, Cambridge CB3 9DR, England
email: [log in to unmask] fax: +44 (0)1223 333160
phone: +44 (0)1223 333069 (with voicemail) or
phone: +44 (0)1223 333000 (ask for pager 036)
Michael Emly said - in whole or part - on 08/09/2008 17:09:
> Dear Hannah
>
> I don't know how your system would handle options 2 or 3 below, but I
> think they could prove difficult because you then have to identify
> which discrete records should be merged to form a single bib. I'd
> recommend option 1, which is what Leeds did.
>
> In terms of specification, if your database is clean and compliant,
> then I wouldn't depart very far from the BL spec - it's tried and
> tested, even if it isn't perfect.
************************************************************************
**
Experience the British Library online at www.bl.uk
The British Library's new interactive Annual Report and Accounts 2007/08
: www.bl.uk/knowledge
Help the British Library conserve the world's knowledge. Adopt a Book.
www.bl.uk/adoptabook
The Library's St Pancras site is WiFi - enabled
************************************************************************
*
The information contained in this e-mail is confidential and may be
legally privileged. It is intended for the addressee(s) only. If you are
not the intended recipient, please delete this e-mail and notify the
[log in to unmask] : The contents of this e-mail must not be disclosed or
copied without the sender's consent.
The statements and opinions expressed in this message are those of the
author and do not necessarily reflect those of the British Library. The
British Library does not take any responsibility for the views of the
author.
************************************************************************
*
Click
https://www.mailcontrol.com/sr/GvPzIsJSxjnTndxI!oX7UtTXwRoU2H8XI9PMFPTxe
VxTuIlbg31f+13I5r7HS!X6OEBH4o35jBZaXEW7R1X!lw== to report this email as
spam.
This email (including any attachments) is intended only for the
recipient(s) named above. It may contain confidential or privileged
information and should not be read, copied or otherwise used by any
other person unless express permission is given. If you are not a named
recipient, please contact the sender and delete the email from your
system. It is the recipient's responsibility to ensure that appropriate
measures are in place to check for software viruses.
-----------------------------------------
THIS E-MAIL AND ANY ATTACHED FILES ARE CONFIDENTIAL AND MAY BE
LEGALLY PRIVILEGED.
If you are not the addressee, any disclosure, reproduction,
copying, distribution or other dissemination or use of this
communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
transmission in error please notify the sender immediately and then
delete this e-mail.
Opinions, advice or facts included in this message are given
without any warranties or intention to enter into a contractual
relationship with the City of London unless specifically indicated
otherwise by agreement, letter or facsimile signed by a City of
London authorised signatory. Any part of this e-mail which is
purely personal in nature is not authorised by the City of London.
All e-mail through the City of London's gateway is potentially the
subject of monitoring. All liability for errors and viruses is
excluded. Please note that in so far as the City of London falls
within the scope of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 or the
Environmental Information Regulations 2004, it may need to disclose
this e-mail.
Website: http://www.cityoflondon.gov.uk
|
