Talk:Library catalog
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Comments on Talk:Catalog prior to move to Talk:Library catalog
I am not sure about all of the English library terminology, as I have learnt it using German books. Could some library expert check the following: subject catalog (as opposed to formal catalog); shelf order catalog; grammatic and mechanic sort order.
There should also be a clear distinction between Stichwort (an important word from the title) and Schlagwort (a word describing the subject of the bibliographic item, not necessarily appearing in the title). Which of the two is a keyword? -- dnjansen 13:55 Mar 2, 2003 (UTC)
- Huh is this the German wikipedia ? ;) . Seriously, I think your history of catalogs missed out the use of microfiche/microflim catalogs. I think it went from book catalog to card catalog to microflim (co-existing with card), then to online catalogs (OPAC).
Instead of a shelf order catalog, libraries generate a "shelf list" of the titles for the staff to take inventory; a true "classified catalog" for the public would list items that have more than one subject under more than one classification number. Grammatic and mechanic sort order is usually described as sorting "word by word" or "letter by letter", respectively. "Keyword" would be the translation of Schlagwort, which refers to all the words in the catalog record, except for the stop words. We use the phrase "title keyword" when this is limited to the words in the title. GUllman 06:07 Mar 3, 2003 (UTC)
- How about catalogs sorted in accession order? Is there a special term for that? Aarontay 11:35, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. (Maybe all of the following should be moved to Collation, but I haven't got time just now to think it through.) Actually, I think that the opposition "word by word" – "letter by letter" is different from the opposition "grammatic" – "mechanic".
- [deleted a lenghty example of grammatic vs. mechanic, which seems to be obsolete. -- dnjansen]
-- dnjansen 23:27 Mar 14, 2003 (UTC)
The "Catalog" entry is quite incomplete and also inaccurate. For example, a "grammatical" catalog as described here exists nowhere. The "grammatical" principle was applied, in a very different way, in former German catalogs, now all defunct. The article does not even mention the most important code of cataloging rules, the AACR. For some material see: "On the theory of library catalogs and search engines", at http://www.allegro-c.de/formate/tlcse.htm
B. Eversberg, UB Braunschweig
- The text you refer to is yours. As you are (probably) the copyright holder, I invite you to copy the relevant parts of the text to this article. I see at least the following points where your contribution would be valuable:
- How did cataloguing come about?
- quality criteria for catalogues: reliability, serendipity, depth.
- multidimensionality of OPACs
- Problems of catalogues: the user should be encouraged to make more attempts, to retry.
- On the other hand, I find that your standard situations of catalogue use are already fully covered by today's version of the article. Perhaps they have to be adapted in view of the user tasks described in FRBR.
- The Preussische Instruktionen (older German catalogue rules prescribing "grammatic" sort order) are defunct, but there are still large catalogues sorted in this manner. I also want this article to be helpful to people who want to know how to consult an (old or new) catalogue. The "grammatic" sort order is not a pure German invention, as the British Museum General Catalogue of Printed Books sorts anonymous publications in a similar way.
- Although the article omits AACR, it does mention the ISBD. Is ISBD superseded?
- Some comments on your text http://www.allegro-c.de/formate/tlcse.htm:
- Sorry, I cannot find a general and comprehensive theory of catalogues in your article.
- Size: Maybe it is even better to compare bibliographies with search engines, as a bibliography also tries to be comprehensive and complete.
- Authority control: Search engines like Google also include an exact and elaborate set of rules to come up with the "most relevant" document, given a search term. However, Google does not publish its rules in detail, to avoid that people abuse them.
- The text seems to be translated from German -- there is one "dagegen" left in the English version.
- -- dnjansen 08:59 6 Jun 2003 (UTC)
[Two additional contributions concern have catalogs other than for libraries, and have been moved back to Talk:Catalog from this spot.]
[edit] comment on "external links / very innovative ..."
It may not be clear to the casual observer that the sites listed by this source jump over two hurdles to be considered "very innovative": (1)Creativity for reasons listed by the site author, and (2) this creativity is displayed exclusively on sites that got their OPAC from Innovative Interfaces, a big vendor in library automation.
I do not thnk the site administrator is being misleading in not specifically stating the brand preference. In fact it will be obvious to all librarians, but I wish your link to his fine site would reflect that the catalogs referred to are all one vendor's product in a field with several major players and many minor ones.
I wish your link would add something like " ... on an Innovative Interfaces catalog ..." between "... functionality" and "(http: ..." in the present anchor.
Zoltan Tomory, M.L.S. (zoltan.tomory@mobot.org)
[edit] The picture of a card catalog
I am uncomfortable with having an old card catalog as the illustration for a library catalog. It is not an example of what a catalog presently is, except in rare exceptions. I will wait a while for discussion and then remove it if no-one makes a good case for having it there. Rlitwin 14:20, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
- Library catalogs have been card catalogs for most of history, until less than a generation ago, so I would add a photo of an online catalog instead of removing the card catalog. There are photos at the article for OPAC (for Online Public Access Catalog) -- a term that has not yet caught on with the general public. Many people still call the OPAC a "card catalog", since it's a useful analogy to think of when one is searching, and therefore a useful illustration at the beginning of this article. GUllman 17:06, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
- A picture of a printed book catalog and a COM catalog might also be considered. (unsigned)
- Card catalogues are far from rare, even today. I have access to a university library which holds somewhere in the region of a million volumes (indexed by an OPAC, and I'd hate to have to use a card catalogue for a such a large collection), but I also frequently use my college library (because it's nearer) which I estimate has holdings of the order of ten thousand volumes, indexed by card. I've never considered this particularly unusual or met anyone who does. In addition, there are likely to be very many much larger libraries in the developing world, dilligently tended by people who value books and love knowledge, whose indexes are not computerised. I'd like to second GUllman's comments above and request that the image of a card catalogue be retained. 86.136.92.2 01:41, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] "Formal" catalogs
As per a much earlier comment above, I am not sure why we should refer to catalogs as "formal." I would prefer removing that term.
