Karen Coyle said:
>OCLC is already taking in publisher data, as is the Open Library. I
>believe LC is also taking in publisher data. Probably many others are
>doing so as well.
Exactly. We now *enrich* MARC records, not *replace* them. Our
clients will not accept LC's harvested all cap 505s. but we are
urging them to accept multiple 505s (one per chapter) with the
publisher's formatting. (We recently had a 38 chapter item, each
chapter having a detailed table of contents.) Abstracts cut and paste
into 520 quite nicely. We are told these increase the use of e-books
due to keyword searching.
>I don't know what your client wanted, but perhaps they wanted some of
>the data publisher's provide that they don't get in library catalog
>records, things like blurbs, tables of contents, author bios....
Blurbs are at home in 520, table of contents in 505, but we've found
no field for author bios. We can't use 856 linking for such things.
because ebrary only allows one 856 per record - their own. Our
limitations are more from systems, than AACR2 or MARC21.
The client mentioned BISAC headings, which could be in 650 7
$2bisacsh. But these seem to me to be for arrangement in bookstores;
e-books are not arranged on shelves. Would BISAC really assist
information retrieval?
The ISBD elements' utility has been proven over time. The utility of
some some newer elements has yet to be established.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__________________________________________________________
