[596] in ad-lib
Re: Advance detail
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (patf@MIT.EDU)
Fri May 12 10:23:07 1995
From: patf@MIT.EDU
To: psac-lib@MIT.EDU, opac-lib@MIT.EDU, cmg-lib@MIT.EDU
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 11 May 1995 14:50:33 EDT."
<9505111850.AA10543@macfadden.MIT.EDU>
Date: Fri, 12 May 1995 10:22:44 EDT
Nina,
It seems to me like we could try to move ahead on this electronically.
A comprehensive list of potential qualifiers would be helpful to have in
any event. How much time do we have? The importance of meeting might
depend on to what extent we are stuck with our decision. Do you know if it
will be possible to add another qualifier later if we miss a signigicant
one? If there is some flexibility to edit our decision later, I would
think each unit could electronically propose the group of qualifiers
they feel are really necessary, and we could come to some decision
without extensive discussion.
Pat
|>
|>Hello all. David and I agree that our groups (PSAC, CMG, and the OPAC
|>implementation group) all have some interest in an imminent Advance
|>decision. Since I know we all like to avoid meetings if we can, I'd
|>like to describe the problem and see if we can come to an agreement
|>electronically.
|>
|>THE PROBLEM.
|>
|>As you all know, in the old Geac system, the location and physical
|>format of each item in our collections are defined by codes for
|>location and material type. In Advance, it works somewhat
|>differently. Each item is assigned a "sublocation" (and these will be
|>the names of our library units) and a "collection" (these are
|>locations within each unit). In many cases, items are also assigned
|>"call number prefixes"; these can be used to define the location more
|>specifically, or to identify the physical format of the item.
|>
|>With me so far?
|>
|>Now. In the OPAC, there is a way to define the parameters of a search
|>by a "qualifier." Any value which is used as a "sublocation,"
|>"collection," or "call number prefix" can be defined as a qualifier.
|>I used to think -- and indeed some of you have heard me say -- that
|>ANY sublocation, collection, or call # prefix could automatically be
|>used as a "qualifier" in setting OPAC parameters. It turns out that I
|>was wrong. We must decide which of these values we want Grant to set
|>up as qualifiers for OPAC searching. Grant tells me that setting up
|>qualifiers is considerable work, and that having a huge body of them
|>may affect the overall performance of the OPAC, so we should be
|>conservative in selecting them, at the same time making sure that our
|>needs and the needs of library users will be met.
|>
|>
|>EXAMPLES.
|>
|>It's clear to me that the names of all library divisions and branches
|>must be qualifiers. Everyone will want to qualify searches by the
|>names of library units!
|>
|>The Music Library has for years been begging for a way to limit
|>searches to scores or CDs. This will allow us to do so.
|>
|>MIT theses will have "thesis" as a call number prefix, so this will
|>help us find them.
|>
|>On the other hand, I (personally) think we can dispense with the
|>ability to qualify searches by "precat." Even "reference," while it
|>might come in handy, is something we could probably do without.
|>
|>In other words, we need to decide which of our
|>locations/collections/formats will be available for users in
|>qualifying their OPAC searches.
|>
|>
|>THE CRUX OF THE MATTER.
|>
|>So, do we think we can wrestle with this online? If the above
|>explanation was clear, and if you think we can move ahead on it
|>without having to meet (much as that would be a pleasure!), I'll send
|>you all a complete list of the sublocations, collections, and call #
|>prefixes, and we can go to town. Otherwise, I'll try to pull together
|>a meeting.
|>
|>Thanks for your attention.
|>
|>Nina
