You know, although I was just trying to comfort myself yesterday, I think it's actually true that splitting up a bunch of conjoined records will be less work than merging a bunch of single records, if only because it will be easier to find them first.
Since paper and electronic books are currently sharing a single record, obviously I only have to find that single record--then make two.
Whereas if I were joining paper and electronic journals into one record, I would have to locate both of them first.
What with the way our OPAC search works, it's easier to specify "give me all the bibliographic records that have both a print and an electronic monograph holding attached" than to say "give me all the bibliographic records for print serial titles that are the same as bibliographic records for electronic serial titles."
The latter is actually not easy at all, as far as I can tell, especially since on occasion we might even have slightly different versions of the title on the record for paper as on electronic. I mean, we shouldn't, but it's hard to be sure, right?
So, yeah, I got the better end of the deal.
It does occur to me that I should put some sort of note in the item record once I split the books, though, the better to de-duplicate for those organizations that ask for statistics on the number of titles held, as opposed to the number of items held.
My work is complex and fascinating, and don't you forget it.
.
No comments:
Post a Comment