-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: Serials List database -- David Goodman
Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2001 08:50:30 -0600
From: "MD_Buddy (Buddy Pennington)" <MD_Buddy@kclibrary.org>
Your example works because the new titles are in alphabetical order with
the old title. What happens if the new title is completely different?
Do you list it twice (once after the older title and then in its correct
location in the entire list)?
My point is that your users are still flipping through the list, just like
"flipping" through MARC records when they trace the 780/785 fields. I
don't see any real difference between the two.
Also, online catalogs enable users to search a multitude of access points
whereas a printed list only has one, the title. And what do you do about
subject access?
Buddy Pennington
Document Delivery Librarian
Kansas City Public Library
md_buddy@kclibrary.org
816-701-3552
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: Serials List database -- Buddy Pennington
Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2001 19:19:37 -0500
From: David Goodman <dgoodman@Princeton.EDU>
Reply-To: dgoodman@Princeton.EDU
Organization: Princeton University
By manually arranging them in a reasonable order.
( a simple example follows, with details omitted) :
*************JOURNAL OF CHROMATOGRAPHY.******************
JOURNAL OF CHROMATOGRAPHY. 1(1958)-650(1990)
Continued by:
JOURNAL OF CHROMATOGRAPHY INCLUDING ELECTROPHORESIS AND OTHER SEPARATION
METHODS. 536(1991)-651(1993)
which is continued in 2 parts by:
JOURNAL OF CHROMATOGRAPHY. A: INCLUDING ELECTROPHORESIS
AND OTHER SEPARATION METHODS. 652(1993)-
and
JOURNAL OF CHROMATOGRAPHY. B, BIOMEDICAL APPLICATIONS.
652(1994)-687(1996)
Which is itself continued by:
JOURNAL OF CHROMATOGRAPHY. B, BIOMEDICAL SCIENCES AND APPLICATIONS.
688(1997)-720(1998)
Note that I make no claims for this being a perfect format. I'm sure a
person who actually knew cataloging could do a lot better.
This also gives the ability to use Bold face, italics, vertical bars,
boxes, and other typographical devices for grouping.
This basically is earliest entry cataloging with cross reference from
later titles. I think that latest entry might be even better, but
because there are many more splits than mergers, it makes a much longer
list.
Now, this does not just have to apply to print. Successive entry
cataloging was only done as a way to avoid having to reprint cards,
which was in the 20th century too expensive a process. That reason
doesn't apply now, and I invite the specialists to do better.
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: Serials List database -- David Goodman
> Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2001 14:20:30 -0600
> From: "MD_Buddy (Buddy Pennington)" <MD_Buddy@KCLIBRARY.ORG>
>
> Okay. I can see your points here, but don't you run into the title
> change
> problem with a printed list too? I admit that the 780/785 fields in
> bibliographic records do not always work like they should (especially
> when a
> title has changed many times over the years!), but how do you solve that
> problem with a printed list?
>
> Buddy Pennington
> Document Delivery Librarian
> Kansas City Public Library
> md_buddy@kclibrary.org
> 816-701-3552
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: Serials List database -- Dan Lester
> Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2001 14:49:59 -0500
> From: David Goodman <dgoodman@princeton.edu>
> Reply-To: dgoodman@princeton.edu
> Organization: Princeton University
>
> There are 2 problems with not having a print list:
> 1. Patrons, especially in science, expect it, ask for it, and complain
> if it isn't there. Even if the patrons want information in a obsolete
> format, if they want it badly enough, I'll get them what they want. I'm
> here to serve them, not dictate to them.
> 2. (The catalogers on this list may object very strongly to what I am
> about to say.)
> The LC rules for serials cataloging as currently used make it almost
> impossible for a patron especially in science to find a journal if there
> have been many successive splits and name changes. (we all know the
> worst examples, such as CRASP, PhysRev, JChemSoc, PhilTransRS)
> At our biology library, where I think it would be fair to say we have
> reasonably intelligent and sophisticated users, I have known over a 10
> yr. period about a dozen patrons who could do this. All are classical
> biologists with a strong need to frequently consult the older
> literature. I have not yet seen a molecular biologist who could. At our
> chemistry library over a similar period I have known two chemists who
> could, both now retired.
> Anyone who wishes to blame this on the quality of our users has, I
> think, the burden of proof. Anyone who wishes to blame it on the
> quality of our library instruction should report their own success with
> an analogous audience.
>
> This said, preparing such as list is not easy. Preparing it from the
> online catalog, using any software, runs into problem 2. above. It is my
> experience, though, that examining the print-out of a sequence of titles
> can be a little clearer than looking at them in sequence on the screen,
> if appear together; a method to list them in chronological order might
> help further.
>
> >
> > -------- Original Message --------
> > Subject: Re: Serials List database -- Susan Schleicher
> > Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2001 12:06:34 -0700
> > From: Dan Lester <dan@riverofdata.com>
> > Reply-To: Dan Lester <dan@riverofdata.com>
> > Organization: RiverOfData.com
> >
> > I'm not sure if I'm answering the right question, but here we go.
> >
> > Friday, December 14, 2001, 10:30:23 AM, you wrote:
> > SC> I hope someone out in Serials Land can help me with this question.
> > Our
> > SC> library is considering the option of NOT printing our serials list
> > in
> > SC> paper any more. Please share with me any successes and/or failures
> > you have
> > SC> encountered using databases to publish your serials list to the web.
> >
> > Boise State has produced a serials list in paper since before 1990
> > (when I arrived). In recent years it has been produced by extracting
> > appropriate data from our Geac Advance integrated library system and
> > then importing that into MSAccess. Since the most recent update to
> > the Advance system, it has become increasingly difficult to do that
> > extraction. In addition, the printed list has become so thick that we
> > can't bind it with our in-house pinbinding any more. We don't want to
> > have 100 copies each of two volumes.
> >
> > We have done tests of a serials list from the Access database in two
> > ways: First, using the native Access to Web tools that come with
> > Access and FrontPage. Second, by producing it in ColdFusion. Both
> > worked, with the latter preferable to the former. However, that still
> > ieft us with the problem of getting the data extracted from the
> > library catalog.
> >
> > We then investigated the companies that create web-based serials
> > lists, talked with all of them on the phone, and analyzed the costs
> > and benefits of each. For our needs, TDNet was the answer. We expect
> > to have the system our for the public by the beginning of next
> > semester. I'm sure we'll let people know when that happens on both
> > this list and on the new TDNETUSERS list we just started.
> >
> > All that being said, I fully expect some of the reference staff to
> > still lobby for a printed list. That, of course, just isn't going to
> > happen. Our public computers allow the user to open multiple browser
> > sessions (we just started permitting that, because of TDNet), so
> > you'll be able to search a database in one window and then check
> > ownership and holdings in another. For ejournals the holdings
> > information is displayed by TDNet; for print and microform, a link to
> > the relevant catalog record is provided, so the latest receiving
> > information is available, as well as full holdings information.
> >
> > I'm sure some will complain that the poor patron who uses a print
> > index won't be able to check holdings. Well, he'll just have to take
> > the index volumes to a computer, or take notes and check later. Since
> > no indexes are more than about 100 feet from a computer, and since
> > print indexes probably receive less than two percent of the total
> > index usage, I'm just not going to worry about that. There are always
> > some who complain about any change, and there's nothing I can do about
> > that. Since our last printed list is almost two years old, most will
> > be happy to have an up to date resource.
> >
> > I'm always happy to answer questions, either on or off list.
> >
> > Happy holidays,
> >
> > dan
> >
> > --
> > Dan Lester, Data Wrangler dan@RiverOfData.com 208-283-7711
> > 3577 East Pecan, Boise, Idaho 83716-7115 USA
> > www.riverofdata.com www.gailndan.com Stop Global Whining!
>
> --
> David Goodman
> Biology Librarian
> and Digital Resources Researcher
> Princeton University Library
> Princeton, NJ 08544-0001
> phone: 609-258-3235
> fax: 609-258-2627
> e-mail: dgoodman@princeton.edu
--
David Goodman
Biology Librarian
and Digital Resources Researcher
Princeton University Library
Princeton, NJ 08544-0001
phone: 609-258-3235
fax: 609-258-2627
e-mail: dgoodman@princeton.edu
