[807] in ad-lib
Re: Confusion re OPAC qualifiers
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (lippertm@MIT.EDU)
Mon Jun 12 11:14:30 1995
From: lippertm@MIT.EDU
To: opac-lib@MIT.EDU, psac-lib@MIT.EDU, sbyrd@MIT.EDU, ninadm@MIT.EDU
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 12 Jun 1995 10:33:24 EDT."
<9506121433.AA05961@macfadden.MIT.EDU>
Date: Mon, 12 Jun 1995 11:13:45 EDT
Actually, we don't think that dskette is needed right now. We looked
through the collection of diskettes we have and all but one are
additions that are associated with a book of some sort. This means that it's
probably very unlikely that anyone will want to look for only
diskettes in a particular subject. If one day diskettes become a more
important part of the collection, then perhaps we would want to add it
as a qualifier, assuming we still have a system that uses them.
See my previous message about maps.
Thanks, Margret
>
>Hi you two, sorry if my previous messages were not as clear as they
>should have been. I shall now attempt to redeem myself.
>
>Please note that in the following explanation I shall use quotation
>marks when a word should be read in its Advance sense, rather than in
>its conversational sense.
>
>OPAC qualifiers can be built from the following categories:
>"sublocations," "collections," and "call prefixes." "Sublocations"
>are the names of specific library units and THIS is the category which
>I am assuming we will all want to have included as qualifiers. Since
>I am making this assumption, I have not sent any e-mail messages which
>included the names of "sublocations." My first e-mail on this topic
>(June2?) included a list of ALL the possible "collections" and "call
>prefixes" from which we can choose. My second e-mail (June8?)
>included a list of the ones people had suggested so far. In fact,
>there should be 100% overlap between the 6/8 and the 6/2 messages,
>since the selections must be made from the list in the 6/2 message.
>
>I gather you would like to add DSKETTE and I have so noted. Also
>THESIS. See my earlier message about MAP, and let me know what you
>think.
>
>And, of course, do let me know if I STILL haven't managed to explain
>this comprehensibly!
>
>Nina
