[808] in ad-lib
Re: Qualifiers
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Patricia Flanagan)
Mon Jun 12 12:20:09 1995
To: ninadm@MIT.EDU
Cc: opac-lib@MIT.EDU
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 12 Jun 1995 10:06:58 EDT."
<9506121406.AA05633@macfadden.MIT.EDU>
Date: Mon, 12 Jun 1995 12:19:33 EDT
From: Patricia Flanagan <patf@MIT.EDU>
Nina,
I think we would want maproom and map as qualifiers. We do know in
Rotch that map can be used modifying a search, but this is sometimes slow
and maybe even unworkable, depending upon the size of the search set you
are modifying. We're aware that maproom doesn't exculsively mean Rotch
maps or all maps, but it does provide us with another way to look for
this format. Also, in reviewing the holdings table conversion chart, it
seems that various libraries have used map or maproom, or maybe even
both for their collections. I don't think using just one term or the
other would work for all parties needs.
Pat
|>The following are messages from Pat and Margo. This is my response:
|>
|>1. I will include Thesis on the list.
|>2. I think we need to give some serious thought to how to handle
|>maps. Here are the issues:
|>
|>In Science, MAPROOM actually describes a specific location, in which
|>are housed many kinds of materials, not only maps. Consequently
|>MAPROOM would be a useful qualifier for someone who wanted to look for
|>material in that specific location. MAPROOM is NOT a useful qualifier
|>for someone looking for maps, since the map room also houses books and
|>folios. Also, in Lindgren maps have the "collection" STACKS, not
|>MAPROOM. We could certainly include MAP but since maps are actually a
|>MARC format, we can limit a search to that format using the Modify
|>option (rather than through OPAC Parms). Sam, I hope you will correct
|>me if I'm wrong here.
|>
|>So, here is what I think: I think if Science people will use MAPROOM
|>in order to pinpoint that physical location, we should include it.
|>If, however, people are simply looking for ways to search for maps, I
|>think we should not include either MAP or MAPROOM but instead use
|>Modify.
|>
|>NOTA BENE, collection managers: the only Branch librarian who's been
|>receiving these messages is Peter. Please be sure your branch
|>colleagues have had a chance to consider these qualifiers!
|>
|>Nina
|>> Hi,
|>>
|>> I think thesis was not included on the June 8 list because it's *already*
|>> a qualifier so no one suggested its addition to the list. At Rotch we
|>> went for "maproom," but considered map, too, so having both would be
|>> fine.
|>>
|>> Pat
|>>
|>> |>Maybe we still haven't had enough coffee:
|>> |>In Nina's June 2 e-mail, a set of collections qualifiers as well as a
|>> |>set of call prefixes was listed. Some overlap between these lists
|>> |>occurs in Nina's June 8 list of about a dozen proposed qualifiers.
|>> |>
|>> |>Does this mean that anything not in the June 8 list will be
|>> |>eliminated? We suggest Map and Thesis for the list. We've all talked
|>> |>a lot about the thesis qualifier, of course, so we were surprised not
|>> |>to see it in the June 8 list, but maybe we're missing something.
|>> |>Although map can be searched as a format, we think it might be useful
|>> |>to have it as a qualifier to limit the total set size. It was slow
|>> |>today for us when we did a sample search on Africa as a keyword and
|>> |>map as limit.
|>> |>
|>> |>-----------
|>> |>Margo M. Miller AND MARGRET LIPPERT
|>> |>Room 14S-134 MIT Engineering and Science Libraries 617-253-6755
