Re: Date in WebOPAC record browse display

[Claudia Chester <cchester@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Meiko,

I never noticed this before - how annoying!

At 05:57 PM 2/26/2002 +0000, you wrote:

>In WebOPAC record browse display the date column shows (or
>"should show in Release A" since there are bugs obscuring some
>of this at present) the date which is used for sorting by year.
>Telnet OPAC has apparently always sorted on the last date (or
>the last 4 digits) in 260|c and after many complaints from users
>Innovative apparently prgorammed the WebOPAC to do the same.  I
>understand that future development is likely to adjust the sort
>by year function to sort on the most recent date.

Niether of these options seems very useful to the patron.

>This is not very helpful for those serials records which have
>start and end dates in 260|c.  Since I'm not a cataloger I don't
>understand the rationale of holding this information in 008, 260
>and 362 :-), but the presence of the end date in 260|c for non-
>current serials means a very confusing browse list.

I AM a cataloger, and I don't entirely understand it, but I do understand 
that the data in the 008 is meant for use by the system, while the variable 
fields are meant for human consumption. Although I understand that part of 
III's design rationale is that non-MARC records should be able to function 
in the system, I don't understand why pulling these dates from the 008 
couldn't be an option.

My suggestion would be to take the date from  'date one' of the 008, where 
it's uncluttered by qualifiers, is usually the publication date in the case 
of monographs or the start date in the case of serials.


>What do other libraries do?  Do you delete 260|c for serials?

I would never do this, since it's very useful information for library 
staff, even if the patron doesn't understand it. This date helps reference 
librarians distinguish between serials with the same or similar titles. The 
open-ended or date range configuration  in the 260 (imprint) is also the 
best visual cue to staff that they are dealing with a serial, we actually 
make a point of ADDING it to catalog copy when it doesn't appear.

>We've had complaints from reference librarians that the display
>of dates other than our own holdings for serials is misleading
>because patrons assume we have the title from the date that
>appears in the OPAC.

We've had the same complaints. If the system consistently showed the 
beginning date (which is what I thought it did), I would (and have) argued 
that it's encumbent on reference staff to interpret this data for the 
patron. Now I feel we should ask for an 'enhancement' that gives us the 
option to decide where we'd like this data to come from and to suppress it 
for serials based on the 008 material type.  If this isn't possible, I feel 
it should come from the 008 date one, as stated above.

What do others think?

>-----
>Mieko Yamaguchi                                m.yamaguchi@xxxxxxxxxx
>Technical Services Manager/System Coordinator        +44 (0)1248 382970
>Main Library, University of Wales Bangor, UK   +44 (0)1248 382979 (Fax)
>
>
>--
>This message was distributed through the Innovative Users Group INNOPAC list
>Public replies:  INNOPAC@xxxxxxxxxx
>Update your subscription options: 
>http://innopacusers.org/list/listinfo/innopac

***********************************************************
Claudia Chester
Technical Services Librarian
Fisher Library
John F. Kennedy University
12 Altarinda Rd.
Orinda, CA 94563

phone: 925-258-2362
fax:   925-254-8136
cchester@xxxxxxxxxx
***********************************************************