Re: Indexing ISBNs

[Elizabeth Thomsen <et@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Now I'm confused.  Do you mean that it's possible to only index the
first ten characters of the 020 field, and the only problem is having
the indexing profile changed and reindexing the database?  Or was
Joo-Gim Wee saying that Innovative considered this change in indexing
custom programming that they would charge for?

We have ISBN validation turned on, and the system correctly validates on
the first 10 characters, ignoring any suffix, but it still sticks the
non-ISBN stuff on the end of the index entry, which means that we don't
get a report of a duplicate for identical ISBNs, one with and one
without "pbk" or whatever.  

I don't see why the system can't handle ISBNs and ISSNs appropriately,
indexing only those fields according the their usual pattern.  As for
overlay, whether or not these are in the same index, they shouldn't be a
problem, since they they are a different number of characters and would
never accidentally match.  What is a problem is having the system
validate the first ten characters but then report duplicates/handle
overlays based on the whole subfield a.  

Whether or not the ISBN is a good matchpoint for overlay is a different
issue, and depends greatly on where you are getting MARC records from
and what you are trying to accomplish.  But can anyone see a
circumstance in which, for overlay or duplicate reporting, you wouldn't
want 0140280499 and 0140280499pbk to be counted as a match?  Can anyone
see any advantage in having the pbk (or whatever) in the index in the
first place?

-- 
Elizabeth Thomsen, Member Services Manager
NOBLE: North of Boston Library Exchange
Danvers MA 01923
et@xxxxxxxxxx


Judith A Schneider wrote:
> 
> I think the reason this can be done at cost is that your ISBN/ISSN index is
> already built. You'd have to ask III to re-build the index, and they generally
> charge for that.
> 
> Also ... what about IISNs? They're 8 characters. Would they be in the same
> index? If you're using ISBN, do you also use ISSN to match?
> 
> Judy Schneider                 "So Many Books ...
> US GAO Library                     So Little Time"
> schneiderj.isc@xxxxxxxxxx
> 
> My opinions are mine! All Mine!
> 
> ____________________Reply Separator____________________
> Subject:    Re: Indexing ISBNs
> Author: <innopac@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Date:       09/02/2000 9:35 AM
> 
> We have  asked for this years back since  we started to implement the
> Innopac system but was given the answer that that could be done at cost.
> We were trying to press for free enhancement but got informal feedback
> that most libraries in the States did not rely on the ISBNs as the match
> point in the downloading of MARC records from external sources as they use
> the OCLC's record number since they do copy cataloguing from OCLC's source
> as members of OCLC.  There were some viewpoints expressed that ISBN is
> not a "reliable" match point since some titles carry wrong ISBNs - this to
> me is the fault of the publishers that led to the confusion and hence the
> eventual mismatch, and publishers should be informed to rectify it.
> 
> Personally I also support that the indexing of the 10 numbers of the
> ISBNs is a good  enhancement to provide additional match point to help
> libraries to download MARC records from external sources (e.g. some
> vendors that offer books with MARC records).  Most vendors that offer
> books with MARC  actually  use the ISBNs for the matching of their
> customers' brief order records against their records in the supply of MARC
> records to their customers.
> 
> Joo-Gim Wee (Ms)
> Deputy Librarian (Technical Services)
> National University of Singapore
> 
> On Fri, 1 Sep 2000, Diane Goodman wrote:
> 
> > I would also support indexing only the 10-number ISBN part of the 020 field.
> Would this help with the following problem?
> >
> > Since we get bib. records from various sources, we set ISBN as a match point.
> When you have "0671234567" in a brief "order" bib. and the incoming full bib.
> has "0671234567 (pbk)," it is NOT considered a match, and the record will not
> overlay.
> >
> > Diane L. Goodman
> > Technical Service Manager
> > Sarasota County Library System
> > Sarasota, Florida
> > dgoodman@xxxxxxxxxx
> >
> >
> > --
> > This message was distributed through the Innovative Users Group INNOPAC list.
> > Private replies:  "Diane Goodman" <dgoodman@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > Public replies:   INNOPAC@xxxxxxxxxx
> > Archives:  http://innopacusers.org/list/archives/
> >
> 
> --
> This message was distributed through the Innovative Users Group INNOPAC list.
> Private replies:  Wee Joo Gim <clbweejg@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Public replies:   INNOPAC@xxxxxxxxxx
> Archives:  http://innopacusers.org/list/archives/
> 
> --
> This message was distributed through the Innovative Users Group INNOPAC list.
> Private replies:  "Judith A Schneider"<schneiderj.isc@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Public replies:   INNOPAC@xxxxxxxxxx
> Archives:  http://innopacusers.org/list/archives/
--
This message was distributed through the Innovative Users Group INNOPAC list.
Private replies:  Elizabeth Thomsen <et@xxxxxxxxxx>
Public replies:   INNOPAC@xxxxxxxxxx
Archives:  http://innopacusers.org/list/archives/