[Libworld] Holdings records

Zurinski, Stephanie Stephanie.Zurinski at maine.gov
Fri Mar 11 08:35:38 EST 2011


Hi Tina,

Your folks are correct.  The definitions are reversed.  I had a serious
brain cramp when I wrote that and we didn't catch it until well into the
training. I had asked LibraryWorld for their definitions on the use of
those fields and they basically said they were interchangeable.  I
seriously apologize for the misinformation and the confusion.

 

Stephanie

 

________________________________

From: libworld-bounces at informe.org [mailto:libworld-bounces at informe.org]
On Behalf Of Tina Branco
Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2011 5:43 PM
To: libworld at lists.maine.gov
Subject: [Libworld] Holdings records

 

Hello fellow lib world users...

 

We here at South Thomaston Public Library are having a 'discussion'
about standardizing our holdings records in LW.  We unfortunately did
not recognize the importance of everyone working from the same musical
score and we find we now have a rather discordant opus to try to clean
up.

 

Specifically, we are dealing with three fields in the holdings records:
Collection, location and call numbers.

 

We have pretty good agreement on what constitutes a call number, but
when it comes to the definition of a collection and the definition of
location, there is a serious fissure taking place amongst us.

 

On page 13 of the LW manual which Stephanie and Valerie so graciously
provided we see

 

"Use LOCATION for Adult, Juvenile and Young Adult and use COLLECTION for
genre (Maine, Mystery, Romance, etc.)"

 

Pg 24 lists examples of "Collections" 

 

Our folks are of the mindset that these definitions are reversed, and
want to make the Collections ADULT< JUV<YA, and the location as the
genre.  I'm having a real teeth pulling exercise here, and want to
settle this by saying that we should all be doing it the same way so
that down the long long long road when these catalogs might be combined
into one big one, I don't want to have to go back and re-do 6-7000
records just to get SoThom in line with the rest of the world.  I'm all
for small town independence, but when we're spending this much time and
effort to cleanup our awfully disparate records from now until the end
of 2011 (it will take that long I'm sure) I really don't want to be
faced with a re-do down the road.

 

Could you all tell me 

 

1.       Are you using the LW Manual guidelines on pg 13 and 24?

2.       If not, what are you using in the Location and Collection field

 

You can reply off list and I'm compile if anyone else wants the info.

 

Thanks for your help.

 

Tina Branco

Acting Director

So Thomaston PL 

tbranco at hughes.net

207-593-9312

 

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.informe.org/pipermail/libworld/attachments/20110311/b56f6d9c/attachment-0001.html


More information about the Libworld mailing list
https://mailman.informe.org/pipermail/libworld/2011-March/000019.html
mailman.informe.org
crawl=CC-MAIN-2022-05
5620
application/http; msgtype=response
sha1:WWHZKV3WWHFWXGH7RIFAJPZ6S4T5GOYH
<urn:uuid:0f8373f9-c4c8-49eb-99e0-101c10676a54>
2022-01-18T21:40:04Z
24.39.63.70
text/html
sha1:XBMHSDGVSVFYXY32SQSUT3V23C2GODAO
<urn:uuid:8ac3100d-f799-400e-9f8d-d2737840ef39>
https://mailman.informe.org/pipermail/libworld/2011-March/000019.html
response
<urn:uuid:90401007-d2cf-46d0-91fd-7bf67ec2cf38>
isPartOf: CC-MAIN-2022-05
publisher: Common Crawl
description: Wide crawl of the web for January 2022
operator: Common Crawl Admin (info@commoncrawl.org)
hostname: ip-10-67-67-78
software: Apache Nutch 1.18 (modified, https://github.com/commoncrawl/nutch/)
robots: checked via crawler-commons 1.3-SNAPSHOT (https://github.com/crawler-commons/crawler-commons)
format: WARC File Format 1.1
conformsTo: https://iipc.github.io/warc-specifications/specifications/warc-format/warc-1.1/