One of the tasks the former WebOPAC Committee had agreed to address was the review of the list of material types used when a modifying a search. We are all aware that the term "AV Materials" was confusing, misleading, etc. but we have decided to look at all the terms used for material types and whether we even need to list every possible material type available.
Unfortunately we cannot make these changes available on the test server. However Brian Egan created a side by side mock up so you can see the proposed changes.
Areas of note:
Please post your comments, suggestions, etc. on this blog post by August 7.
Once we have received your comments we will be sharing these proposed changes with our III shared member institutions.
WebOPAC labels do not automatically get updated in Encore. We will need to let III know what changes to make once we have decided what we want..
Attached is a spreadsheet that will provide some additional information:
Sheet 1 lists the WebOPAC material types (bcode2) with the term as currently displayed, the number of UNLV records displaying as of 7/13/09, the MARC definitio of the term, and local information.
Sheet 2 lists the WebOPAC material types (bcode2) with the proposed term in a new display order, the current term, the number of UNLV records, the number of member institutions records and the total number of records all displaying as of 7/13/09 , the MARC definition of the term, and some notes about the proposed changes.
Material type proposal on III.xls
Unfortunately we cannot make these changes available on the test server. However Brian Egan created a side by side mock up so you can see the proposed changes.
Areas of note:
- "Material Type" has changed to "Format"
- Order of items has changed
- Terminology has changed
- Number of formats has been reduced
Please post your comments, suggestions, etc. on this blog post by August 7.
Once we have received your comments we will be sharing these proposed changes with our III shared member institutions.
WebOPAC labels do not automatically get updated in Encore. We will need to let III know what changes to make once we have decided what we want..
Attached is a spreadsheet that will provide some additional information:
Sheet 1 lists the WebOPAC material types (bcode2) with the term as currently displayed, the number of UNLV records displaying as of 7/13/09, the MARC definitio of the term, and local information.
Sheet 2 lists the WebOPAC material types (bcode2) with the proposed term in a new display order, the current term, the number of UNLV records, the number of member institutions records and the total number of records all displaying as of 7/13/09 , the MARC definition of the term, and some notes about the proposed changes.
Material type proposal on III.xls
I'm in support of keeping Nonmusic Recording even though I agree with Wendy that it probably doesn't get used often. With so much music recordings, finding these other sound items would be difficult without a Nonmusic limit.
In response to Amy's comments: Although 998 items have the location of CML Kits, only 95 items are actually coded as "kits" and would be found if the "kits" material type limitation was used.
The definition of items coded as kits is: Used for a mixture of various components issued as a unit and intended primarily for instructional purposes where no one item is the predominant component of the kit.
Many of the items CML has designated as kits and housed in bags are actually cataloged for the predominant component of the item such as pictures, books, maps, music recordings, etc. It was felt (just as Amy & Dee thought) that by limiting by the location CML Kits patrons would retrieve more items that CML has designated as kits.
I'm curious as to how "kits" came up as a potential material type to eliminate...can someone enlighten me? Dee and I have discussed it, and neither one of us use the kit "material type" to narrow searches, instead we use the kit "location." However, I'm thinking that our patrons may be more drawn to use material type than location, as the verbage would be more familiar to them.
My 10 cents (I think it's more than 2 cents!).
:)
~Amy
There has been some discussion about the term manuscript as it currently exists in the catalog and the 2 proposed terms: Thesis or Manuscript and Archival Material.
The definition for items coded as Thesis or Manuscript is: Manuscript language material: Used for manuscript language material or a microform of manuscript language material. This category is applied to items for language material in handwriting, typescript, or computer printout including printed materials completed by hand or by keyboard. At the time it is created, this material is usually intended, either implicitly or explicitly, to exist as a single instance. Examples include marked or corrected galley and page proofs, manuscript books, legal papers, and unpublished theses and dissertations.
Under this definition theses are considered to be manuscripts because at the time of creation the material is usually intended to exist as a single instance.
The definition for items coded as Archival Materials is: Mixed materials: Used when there are significant materials in two or more forms that are usually related by virtue of their having been accumulated by or about a person or body. Includes archival fonds and manuscript collections of mixed forms of materials, such as text, photographs, and sound recordings.
In order to avoid confusion, single non-thesis manuscript records could be re-coded to create the format: Manuscript or Archive. Although we are trying to avoid creating non-standard coding in our bibliographic records, this change could be made based on the limited number of records (approximately 100) that would need to be changed. However any time we make a non-standard coding decision we have to remember to change the bibliographic record in the III system. If we load records from a vendor these will retain whatever coding the vendor assigned.
Following this proposal the terms would become:
Thesis
Manuscript or Archive
In response to Cory's comments: No, the Nevada Test Site digital collection is not coded as an electonic resource [computer file] because it is mostly text. If it were, it would be on the books format. It is coded on the computer format as it is a mixture--sound recordings, text, and some pictures, so it doesn't fit under books or images or sound recordings.
In response to Kelly's comments: our new tentative plan is to make thesis one category and to combine manuscripts and archival material in another category.
In response to Cory's comments on the term PICTURE, GRAPHIC, ETC. The definition for items coded under this term is: Two-dimensional nonprojectable graphic:
Used for two-dimensional nonprojectable graphics such as, activity cards, charts, collages, computer graphics, digital pictures, drawings, duplication masters, flash cards, paintings, photo CDs, photomechanical reproductions, photonegatives, photoprints, pictures, postcards, posters, prints, spirit masters, study prints, technical drawings, transparency masters, and reproductions of any of these.
In addition to the collections I listed below in my earlier response to Wendy, we own such items as flash cards, posters, charts, art reproductions, etc. that are coded under this term.
Image is a term that is in common use but since this term has a broad definition how about the term: IMAGE, GRAPHIC, ETC.
Thanks to everyone that has been working on this! Just a couple thoughts/questions:
Archival Material: I think it would be great to hear from Special Collections about the Archival Material label...does the label "fit" for what your users would expect for the results? I agree with Marilyn that adding finding aids (if we have them) to the records could help, since we do have a second information source (the Special Collections database) that returns a different set of results than the catalog.
Pictures: Personally, I would think Images might be a better label. Pictures makes me think of physical items like paintings, or something! But, maybe it is just me...
The label changes also reveal patterns in our cataloging practices. For instance, I noticed most, but not ALL digital collections are under Pictures, and I wondered why? Kathy Rankin provided some context for this that helped me: the Howard Hughes digital collection has the picture icon because it is based on content (mostly photgraphs) and the Nevada Test Site digital collection has the computer disc icon because it is primarily documents and not many images.
Are there others that have questions about their collection's format types/labels?
Thanks! Cory
Do people limit by thesis a lot? Also, manuscript tends to be interpreted much more widely than it's used here. Would it be better to just have Thesis?
In response to Wendy's comments:
The Nonmusic recording limitation was included in case someone wanted to hear a speech, listen to a poetry reading, or find an audiobook, etc. Media, CML & Architecture may find this useful. This is the 4th most common format owned by our member institutions.
The term "archival material" is replacing the term "mixed material". It would be useful to have all archival collections in the catalog with a link to the finding aid.
Although the numbers are small, the pictures format was included since some recently cataloged items such as the Howard Hughes digital collection and a postcard collection: The spirit of Las Vegas, 1950-2000 are cataloged in this format.
Both "archival material" and "picture, graphic, etc." may represent cases where we might want to eliminate the format for now but add it when the numbers are greater.
I'd eliminate Nonmusic recording - not enough items to warrant it and in 20+ years of serving on ref desks, I never once used it as a limit. Is "archival material" a new entry? It could prove to be misleading if people thought that the system was searching all the archives we owned, unless of course records for all of them are going to be (or have already been) added to the catalog. I thought we only had finding aids developed for that info. Anyway - just wondering. I would also wonder how often the pictures format limit is used anymore given that one can so easily find images on the web - would they really limit themselves to searching for pictures in our collections? Just wondering. Wendy