My mother-in-law, Iris Weis, came close to death yesterday when for some unknown reason her blood pressure dropped almost to zero. It might have been because of a change in medication. The doctors were able to get her on an external pace-maker that was inserted through one of her arteries. She stabilized and got much better. The doctor also reported to the family (not to Iris) that she had a minor stroke that has affected her right side. I'm not sure when she may have had the stroke. He believes that with physical therapy she should recover complete use of her arm and leg. Last Thursday evening, I believe, after several days with a tube in a throat the respirator was removed and Iris could talk again. She really hated that part of the recovery. Thank you for your concern for her.
David H.
Monday, August 20, 2007
Wednesday, August 15, 2007
Health Update
I wanted to give an update on the health of my mother-in-law, Iris Weis. Iris is 81 years old and on Monday, August 13th she had tripple by-pass heart surgery. Also during that operation it was discovered that a valve to her heart was completely clogged, so she received an artificial valve. The doctors decided that the valve should be repaired since Iris is such an active person. She does a great deal of sewing for people, teaches line-dancing and works as a volunteer at the Madera Community Hospital. Because she has been taking baby aspirin for years and has recently been on Plavix, the bleeding was difficult to stop at the end of the surgery. It took a micro-drop of medicine to do it...the cost = $10,000! Presently she is still on a respirator which means having a tube down her throat. She really hates that part of the recovery, but it's necessary. Perhaps today (Wed., Aug. 15) she will be taken off of it and can breathe on her own.
David H.
David H.
Tuesday, July 24, 2007
sound(s) of music
If you want music as background in the department, vote in the affirmative. If you don't, no need to cast that negative vote! Or, just feel free to say why you think it's not a good idea. Or, is there some topic or idea someone would like to discuss so that we can start conversing on the blog, which is what blogging is about--an informal venue to put out ideas.
Thursday, July 19, 2007
summary of ALA
Here's the fun and educational stuff I did: visited the Library of Congress (had a wonderful exhibit of 20th century japanese art and went underground the building to the Coolidge auditorium where Dr. Billington, Librarian of Congress, was interviewed by C-Span) He's an impressive and distinguished representative for American libraries in my opinion. The Library has helped national libraries in Russia and Iraq among others with collection building and supporting digitization projects. Saw the staff room where staff go for good and relatively cheap eats. Walked through the Botanical gardens near the Capitol building and visited the National Archives. Went into the "research room" where they had some databases to do genealogical research and Diane found some things about her family history. All meals good and expensive, obviously many white collar types on expense accounts.
Attended only meetings which were at the Convention Center because it is just too complicated and a time waster to use the shuttle to go to all the different hotels. For me, it worked. These are some topics and conclusions or at least key points. First meeting which I actually managed to arrive for at 8:00 AM was on MARC. Even the presenters admitted it was too early and technical a topic for an early start. For those who are aware, there was a study done on the applicability of MARC fields from the records to the opac and service point, i.e. user. Some 20% of the fields are useful, however, some fields are not among those 20% and would be of extreme importance in some libraries with a special collection or clientele. Questions from the audience at the end brought up some issues which the research did not take into account and the presenters discussed their awareness of the issues and the limitations of the study in drawing any comprehensive or conclusive evidence that only 20% of MARC fields are worth having or keeping. However, it does indicate that MARC's value and applicability is under review. That's my non-scientific conclusion.
Here are just some things that caught my attention or challenged some preconceptions: Friends groups can attract people who are not library users and need to cultivate folks with a philanthropic mind set as well. Maybe create a Friends group for younger crowd. One library talked about a book club meeting at restaurants. That lead to inviting restauranteurs to talk about their experiences in starting a restaurant. The key is to create library supporters, not necessarily users. Program on Generation X, those are folks who are new faculty/staff, grad students and non traditionals. They want personalization and directness and like socialization and networking. Communicate via websites, direct mail without hype and to the point. Word of mouth, personalization, has impact.
Library reorganization--What are libraries key services? That helps to focus on outcomes and strategy. Ask staff what can be given up or changed. What are fantasy changes? What are the bottlenecks? How many people are needed to do a job and why? Right work being done at the right level? Do staff get opportunities to lead? Investigate best practices elsewhere but that isn't always where the innovation is--broaden point of view, include business and retail perspectives. What competencies are expected for staff? Reward culture that wants to try new things.
Presentation by Library Research Roundtable, included doctoral students and Proquest. Ethnographic study of undergrads using software, UserVue, to see how they do research. Found subjects through Facebook. 95% of students used library resources, so library outreach, course instructor, and brand awareness (Lexis, Proquest etc.) are effective. Problems with navigating webstire of Library, search catalog is front & center when e-resources, journal articles are what they want. Most use Google as a lookup. Social networking sites don't factor into student research. Library as place. Study involved going to coffeehouses to observe what students go and why they are there. Users see library as clinical institution as opposed to social place like coffee house. Coffee house concept started in Europe as a place where students could talk freely. Those who don't use Library prefer to study at home and buy their own books. Those who go to the library want to study, research, check out books. Coffee house environment is too noisy and lack of space. Age has a lot to do with learning style and age affects online interactions. Use of humor and get to know the person. Interaction may be the learning experience and not the factual answer. Face to face encounter contributed to more effective online interaction.
Attended only meetings which were at the Convention Center because it is just too complicated and a time waster to use the shuttle to go to all the different hotels. For me, it worked. These are some topics and conclusions or at least key points. First meeting which I actually managed to arrive for at 8:00 AM was on MARC. Even the presenters admitted it was too early and technical a topic for an early start. For those who are aware, there was a study done on the applicability of MARC fields from the records to the opac and service point, i.e. user. Some 20% of the fields are useful, however, some fields are not among those 20% and would be of extreme importance in some libraries with a special collection or clientele. Questions from the audience at the end brought up some issues which the research did not take into account and the presenters discussed their awareness of the issues and the limitations of the study in drawing any comprehensive or conclusive evidence that only 20% of MARC fields are worth having or keeping. However, it does indicate that MARC's value and applicability is under review. That's my non-scientific conclusion.
Here are just some things that caught my attention or challenged some preconceptions: Friends groups can attract people who are not library users and need to cultivate folks with a philanthropic mind set as well. Maybe create a Friends group for younger crowd. One library talked about a book club meeting at restaurants. That lead to inviting restauranteurs to talk about their experiences in starting a restaurant. The key is to create library supporters, not necessarily users. Program on Generation X, those are folks who are new faculty/staff, grad students and non traditionals. They want personalization and directness and like socialization and networking. Communicate via websites, direct mail without hype and to the point. Word of mouth, personalization, has impact.
Library reorganization--What are libraries key services? That helps to focus on outcomes and strategy. Ask staff what can be given up or changed. What are fantasy changes? What are the bottlenecks? How many people are needed to do a job and why? Right work being done at the right level? Do staff get opportunities to lead? Investigate best practices elsewhere but that isn't always where the innovation is--broaden point of view, include business and retail perspectives. What competencies are expected for staff? Reward culture that wants to try new things.
Presentation by Library Research Roundtable, included doctoral students and Proquest. Ethnographic study of undergrads using software, UserVue, to see how they do research. Found subjects through Facebook. 95% of students used library resources, so library outreach, course instructor, and brand awareness (Lexis, Proquest etc.) are effective. Problems with navigating webstire of Library, search catalog is front & center when e-resources, journal articles are what they want. Most use Google as a lookup. Social networking sites don't factor into student research. Library as place. Study involved going to coffeehouses to observe what students go and why they are there. Users see library as clinical institution as opposed to social place like coffee house. Coffee house concept started in Europe as a place where students could talk freely. Those who don't use Library prefer to study at home and buy their own books. Those who go to the library want to study, research, check out books. Coffee house environment is too noisy and lack of space. Age has a lot to do with learning style and age affects online interactions. Use of humor and get to know the person. Interaction may be the learning experience and not the factual answer. Face to face encounter contributed to more effective online interaction.
Friday, July 13, 2007
Appreciation
Dear Tech Staff,
Thank you for the very generous outpouring of kindness and concern for me at the passing of my mother on Monday, July 9th. I really appreciate your friendship! Mom was 87 1/2 years old at her passing. She had been blessed with a good life with relatively good health all the way through. Thanks again for your thoughtfulness!
David
Thank you for the very generous outpouring of kindness and concern for me at the passing of my mother on Monday, July 9th. I really appreciate your friendship! Mom was 87 1/2 years old at her passing. She had been blessed with a good life with relatively good health all the way through. Thanks again for your thoughtfulness!
David
Wednesday, June 20, 2007
Baker & Taylor Records Now Being Added to WorldCat
Hi folks!
This was in on my OCLC-CAT list this morning. Thought you'd be interested in knowing about it, as you will likely be coming across these skimpy records! They have funny caps, no subject headings, incorrect tagging for the author added entries, etc. On the records that I've seen, just about the only things right are the ISBN (so you'll get a direct hit), the title, and the publisher name and date of publication. It's just a very, very brief bib. (These will need to ultimately be upgraded by a cataloger.)
Hope this helps!
Julie
* * * *
Baker & Taylor, a leading supplier of materials to public libraries, is
now adding records to WorldCat.
Baker & Taylor, headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina, provides
books, music, DVDs, and video games as well as supporting collection
management and technical services to libraries around the world. The
titles are being added as part of the agreement between Baker & Taylor
and OCLC to partner in providing bibliographic records and expanded
technical services to schools and public libraries. See the press
release about this partnership at:
http://www.btol.com/viewnews.cfm?press_id=161&typ=c
And, you may access Baker & Taylor's website at: http://www.btol.com
Baker & Taylor records loaded into WorldCat are from two sources: 1)
Baker & Taylor's cataloging file, containing full and CIP cataloging
MARC records from Library of Congress as well as full cataloging MARC
records, produced by Baker & Taylor's MLS Catalogers when there was no
LOC record, and 2) Baker & Taylor's product file, containing brief
non-MARC records used in B&T's Order Processing System. These records
are converted to MARC by an OCLC mapping process. Both types of records
are then matched against WorldCat records through a batch process. When
a record is matched, BTCTA is added to field 040 subfield d. This
indicates that field 938 has been added to the matching record and
contains Baker & Taylor product data (Baker & Taylor unique identifier,
i.e., book number). No other editing of records occurs as part of this
process. When no matching record is identified through the batch
process, OCLC adds the Baker & Taylor record as a new record to
WorldCat. This record contains the symbol BTCTA in field 040 subfields a
and c.
Examples:
Cataloging file matches: #77573121, #77589800, #75390371
Cataloging file adds: #123119571, #123119328, #123118608
Product file matches: #70712452, #77553985
Product file adds: #144216551, #144216552, #144216553
Added product file records are very brief and are coded as abbreviated
records (Encoding Level 3). They are not created by or examined by a
cataloger. This provides customers using the new Baker& Taylor/OCLC
Cataloging Plus service with access to the OCLC number early in the
acquisitions workflow. For more information on these services go to
http://www.btol.com
OCLC encourages member libraries who acquire one of these titles to
upgrade and replace the record and receive credit on your OCLC bill for
upgrading that record. As Baker & Taylor catalogers are performing
cataloging services for customers, they will also be upgrading these
records. This is an important and key feature of the Baker & Taylor /
OCLC agreement.
In both cases of original records and matches, a 938 field is added to
the MARC record that contains the vendor code BTCP. This code is
indexed; vendor records are searchable using the vendor information
keyword index. For a list of all partners contributing records through
the Vendor Record Contribution Program, see:
http://www.oclc.org/partnerships/material/contribution/technical/default
.htm
(2007 06 20)
Chris Grabenstatter
Global Product Manager, Online Cataloging
OCLC Cataloging Products & Services
6565 Kilgour Place
Dublin, OH 43017
614-764-6181
800-848-5878 ext: 6181
fax: 614-718-7249
grabenst@oclc.org
This was in on my OCLC-CAT list this morning. Thought you'd be interested in knowing about it, as you will likely be coming across these skimpy records! They have funny caps, no subject headings, incorrect tagging for the author added entries, etc. On the records that I've seen, just about the only things right are the ISBN (so you'll get a direct hit), the title, and the publisher name and date of publication. It's just a very, very brief bib. (These will need to ultimately be upgraded by a cataloger.)
Hope this helps!
Julie
* * * *
Baker & Taylor, a leading supplier of materials to public libraries, is
now adding records to WorldCat.
Baker & Taylor, headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina, provides
books, music, DVDs, and video games as well as supporting collection
management and technical services to libraries around the world. The
titles are being added as part of the agreement between Baker & Taylor
and OCLC to partner in providing bibliographic records and expanded
technical services to schools and public libraries. See the press
release about this partnership at:
http://www.btol.com/viewnews.cfm?press_id=161&typ=c
And, you may access Baker & Taylor's website at: http://www.btol.com
Baker & Taylor records loaded into WorldCat are from two sources: 1)
Baker & Taylor's cataloging file, containing full and CIP cataloging
MARC records from Library of Congress as well as full cataloging MARC
records, produced by Baker & Taylor's MLS Catalogers when there was no
LOC record, and 2) Baker & Taylor's product file, containing brief
non-MARC records used in B&T's Order Processing System. These records
are converted to MARC by an OCLC mapping process. Both types of records
are then matched against WorldCat records through a batch process. When
a record is matched, BTCTA is added to field 040 subfield d. This
indicates that field 938 has been added to the matching record and
contains Baker & Taylor product data (Baker & Taylor unique identifier,
i.e., book number). No other editing of records occurs as part of this
process. When no matching record is identified through the batch
process, OCLC adds the Baker & Taylor record as a new record to
WorldCat. This record contains the symbol BTCTA in field 040 subfields a
and c.
Examples:
Cataloging file matches: #77573121, #77589800, #75390371
Cataloging file adds: #123119571, #123119328, #123118608
Product file matches: #70712452, #77553985
Product file adds: #144216551, #144216552, #144216553
Added product file records are very brief and are coded as abbreviated
records (Encoding Level 3). They are not created by or examined by a
cataloger. This provides customers using the new Baker& Taylor/OCLC
Cataloging Plus service with access to the OCLC number early in the
acquisitions workflow. For more information on these services go to
http://www.btol.com
OCLC encourages member libraries who acquire one of these titles to
upgrade and replace the record and receive credit on your OCLC bill for
upgrading that record. As Baker & Taylor catalogers are performing
cataloging services for customers, they will also be upgrading these
records. This is an important and key feature of the Baker & Taylor /
OCLC agreement.
In both cases of original records and matches, a 938 field is added to
the MARC record that contains the vendor code BTCP. This code is
indexed; vendor records are searchable using the vendor information
keyword index. For a list of all partners contributing records through
the Vendor Record Contribution Program, see:
http://www.oclc.org/partnerships/material/contribution/technical/default
.htm
(2007 06 20)
Chris Grabenstatter
Global Product Manager, Online Cataloging
OCLC Cataloging Products & Services
6565 Kilgour Place
Dublin, OH 43017
614-764-6181
800-848-5878 ext: 6181
fax: 614-718-7249
grabenst@oclc.org
Tuesday, June 5, 2007
information regarding genre headings
Do you all know about LC's plan to add 655, genre headings to records? This is different from and/or in addition to #v which has been used with subjects to express that the material contained within the manifestation is about the subject. Here is some info from the OCLC blog which supports the use of 655, which some think is redundant because we already use #v in headings. I think each library can do what they want, that is, implement and use 655 field in their catalog or not. The message from OCLC listserv starts below:
Well, I must admit when I initially submitted my 655 genre tag question to this list I had no idea what a Pandora's box I would be opening! I must also admit that I have found the discussion of this particular issue (and it does seem to be an issue) to be most interesting and enlightening. It has really given me some food for thought in regard to the coding of genre headings in our opac and in opacs in general.
Someone on this list stated that genre headings (in the 655 MARC field) cannot be subdivided. I find this odd since other 6xx fields can be subdivided, and I would appreciate knowing exactly where it states in any documentation that this is the case (which I may very well have overlooked).
Lindsey Martin
Joel Hahn wrote:
David Girshick wrote:> ... our end users cannot tell the difference between the ABOUT and theFORM/GENRE.I think you are likely selling your users short--anyone who has made itthrough high school (and many others who haven't gotten there yet)probably has enough of an idea what a "genre" is and how it differs froma subject, even if they can't properly pronounce the word.And even if not, it's a simple enough concept to briefly explain that 30seconds of B.I. or a "what am I" popup definition in the OPAC should besufficient.> Few catalogs separate them and if they did, few customers wouldunderstand the separation. Most searches are just keyword to beginwith.In 2007 so far, around 51% of all of the searches done in our OPAC were"general" keyword searches a la Google. The remaining 49% were authorkeyword, title keyword, subject keyword, series keyword, genre keyword,one of the other keyword indexes, some combination of the above, authorbrowse, title browse, or subject browse.So while 51% might technically be "most", I do not think it is enough tosay that anything more specific is only understood by a few and shouldnot be supported.Frank Newton wrote:> I think there is general agreement in favor of Love stories > and Western films as subject headings, but no general agreement > in favor of SEPARATING THEM OUT from 650 subject headings.Why do we also have 600, 610, 611, 630, and 651 headings? Why aren'tthey all 650 headings, or even simpler, just 600 headings? Especiallyif "most searches are just keyword to begin with."Because there are a significant number of people out there who DO knowhow to search a catalog beyond the simplicity of a general keywordsearch, DO benefit from being able to specify "subject: person" vs."subject: topic" vs. "subject: genre" vs. "subject: title", and whowould suffer a significant drop in service from the library if thatability were taken away.
Well, I must admit when I initially submitted my 655 genre tag question to this list I had no idea what a Pandora's box I would be opening! I must also admit that I have found the discussion of this particular issue (and it does seem to be an issue) to be most interesting and enlightening. It has really given me some food for thought in regard to the coding of genre headings in our opac and in opacs in general.
Someone on this list stated that genre headings (in the 655 MARC field) cannot be subdivided. I find this odd since other 6xx fields can be subdivided, and I would appreciate knowing exactly where it states in any documentation that this is the case (which I may very well have overlooked).
Lindsey Martin
Joel Hahn
David Girshick wrote:> ... our end users cannot tell the difference between the ABOUT and theFORM/GENRE.I think you are likely selling your users short--anyone who has made itthrough high school (and many others who haven't gotten there yet)probably has enough of an idea what a "genre" is and how it differs froma subject, even if they can't properly pronounce the word.And even if not, it's a simple enough concept to briefly explain that 30seconds of B.I. or a "what am I" popup definition in the OPAC should besufficient.> Few catalogs separate them and if they did, few customers wouldunderstand the separation. Most searches are just keyword to beginwith.In 2007 so far, around 51% of all of the searches done in our OPAC were"general" keyword searches a la Google. The remaining 49% were authorkeyword, title keyword, subject keyword, series keyword, genre keyword,one of the other keyword indexes, some combination of the above, authorbrowse, title browse, or subject browse.So while 51% might technically be "most", I do not think it is enough tosay that anything more specific is only understood by a few and shouldnot be supported.Frank Newton wrote:> I think there is general agreement in favor of Love stories > and Western films as subject headings, but no general agreement > in favor of SEPARATING THEM OUT from 650 subject headings.Why do we also have 600, 610, 611, 630, and 651 headings? Why aren'tthey all 650 headings, or even simpler, just 600 headings? Especiallyif "most searches are just keyword to begin with."Because there are a significant number of people out there who DO knowhow to search a catalog beyond the simplicity of a general keywordsearch, DO benefit from being able to specify "subject: person" vs."subject: topic" vs. "subject: genre" vs. "subject: title", and whowould suffer a significant drop in service from the library if thatability were taken away.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)