David J. Fiander wrote:
That's a very interesting site. Of particular interest is the "Survey
on Vendor Support"
http://www.loc.gov/acq/conser/patthold-vendorsurvey.html:
Of the 11 vendors surveyed, 10 support MFHD, and they use that
information to set up their issue predictions. But only 6 vendors use
the $y regularity pattern to "anticipate normalized irregulars" (like
the Economist or Library Journal combined/skipped issues).
And NONE of the vendors support sharing MFHD with other ILS systems.
Gotta love communication standards.
- David
Yep. "We can program it better than the standard attitude" really hurts
us here. At least they should support exporting and importing using MFHD
even if they use something different within the ILS. Compared to a lot
of other things in the Library world, the MFHD is not really that
complicated. It is a shame that our systems make it so hard to share
this type of data even when there are standards. Hopefully Evergreen
will lead the way and make things like this work for libraries.
Edward
On 16-Sep-2008, at 17:20 , Dan Scott wrote:
2008/9/16 David Fiander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
<snip>
I have started to think that serials issuance patterns are something
that should be shared: it's not like I get different issues of the
Economist or Lancet than you do, so why should we duplicate the effort
of describing the pattern?
That is, of course, a completely different project from
exporting/importing holdings data and making predictions about when
the next issue should arrive.
You are not alone; CONSER's "Public Pattern Initiative"
(http://www.loc.gov/acq/conser/patthold.html) was an effort to do
exactly this. I'm not sure whether the project is still alive, though.
--
Dan Scott
Laurentian University
