Settings and activity
14 results found
-
40 votes
Dustin Ludeman
supported this idea
·
-
9 votesDustin Ludeman
supported this idea
·
-
56 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment An error occurred while saving the comment Dustin Ludeman
commented
I agree, Bill. Two records with the same generic uniform title (such as "Short stories. Selections") might have completely different content.
Dustin Ludeman
supported this idea
·
-
22 votesDustin Ludeman
supported this idea
·
-
13 votesDustin Ludeman
supported this idea
·
An error occurred while saving the comment Dustin Ludeman
commented
Does this have to do with the fact that only the first contents note (505) field displays in Vega?
-
61 votesDustin Ludeman
supported this idea
·
-
80 votesDustin Ludeman
supported this idea
·
-
9 votesDustin Ludeman
supported this idea
·
-
58 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Dustin Ludeman
commented
This is especially problematic when different works roll up together.
Dustin Ludeman
supported this idea
·
-
48 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Dustin Ludeman
commented
It's critical that title access points (uniform titles) are indexed in their entirety, not just select subfields. When subfields are removed from access points, their meaning can fundamentally change. Access point strings are like indivisible, unique identifiers. It's like removing the portion of a personal name heading that differentiates it from similar names. These other subfields include words that will enrich searching: If a user's search includes a word that appears in a subfield that isn't currently indexed--like the date of a treaty in $d--relevant records might not be retrieved. Our databases are full of records for compilations. These records include carefully managed uniform titles that users should be able to click on to retrieve a list of all other records that also include that title, whether as a main or added entry. They can currently do this in Vega for topics and contributors.
Dustin Ludeman
supported this idea
·
-
20 votesDustin Ludeman
supported this idea
·
-
12 votesDustin Ludeman
supported this idea
·
-
44 votesDustin Ludeman
shared this idea
·
-
44 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Dustin Ludeman
commented
I'm glad to see this proposal, Charlie. We can't expect users to know the "authorized" forms of names, titles or subjects used in the catalog. That's only the surface level of organization in our catalogs. Authority data is the stuff that will actually help users navigate from the terms THEY know to resources relevant to their needs.
Dustin Ludeman
supported this idea
·
Great example, Alison. The solutions aren't acceptable. We can't change international cataloging standards to make our data fit into "the OPAC of the hour."