biblioteq
biblioteq copied to clipboard
textbrowser
Batch Activities and additional scanning queries.
The existing query will retrieve the title and the identifier name which identifies the item.
Hello, textbrowser hotline
yes hello, I have a problem with the Batch Activities feature; the scanner only takes isbn.
The problem is that in my library 1/3 of the books are without isbn.
The return to the book by book functionality is too restrictive and requires too many clicks and then return to Batch Activities.
Can you explain in theory what you can improve
answer: sorry textbrowser is in america and not available at the moment, he will contact you as soon as possible.
Hello, textbrowser hotline
yes hello, I have a problem with the Batch Activities feature; the scanner only takes isbn.
The problem is that in my library 1/3 of the books are without isbn.
The return to the book by book functionality is too restrictive and requires too many clicks and then return to Batch Activities.
Can you explain in theory what you can improve
answer: sorry textbrowser is in america and not available at the moment, he will contact you as soon as possible.
For sure it'll be very exciting.
Your perspective on convenience complicates identifying items. How is BQ supposed to know how your library identifies an item for reservation? We have unique ISBNs and we have books without ISBNs. Let's say your library prefers titles or access_numbers or callnumbers. How can we guarantee that these are unique? We cannot. If I have two items: 0123456789 (accession_number) and 0123456789 (id), BQ will retrieve the first one in BA. How does a description (title, pub. date, whatever) help you? It doesn't. In BA, you cannot instruct BQ to select the second one because you have to instruct it and by instructing it, the purpose of convenience is dead.
This is a super weird request.
If I'm scanning a barcode for my library, that better be the only item having that value. I'm in a busted reality if it isn't. So should BQ retrieve all items that supposedly break the definition of uniqueness in my library? Like, how does this work? 20 items, 50 items. There should be only one but because we're querying by multiple identifiers, we're going to get only one thing although we may have multiple items. So it cannot be convenient even in a proper library.
And before you suggest more fields, do realize that that already exists in proper searches. So BA would become a lesser proper search with convenience in mind without being convenient. Like, what?
I don't want to disturb you but I answer to your messages. There is no request from me before December 2022.
1 - For books with ISBN in barcode form: we agree the functionality is OK 2 - For books without ISBN, we must find another value to access this document or follow your position: this works for the most part so it's OK, the rest is done in the classic way) you can close the ticket
2bis : BiblioteQ must allow the user to scan a local barcode (specific to the library - not isbn) and BQ does the same as with the isbn but on the local barcode.
For my library : we put the "local" barcode in the accession_number field.
I hear your difficulty, with the argument another library may have chosen another field. Suggestions :
- allow the user to define the field of his "local barcode".
Explanation of the use of a local barcode : We borrow from the central library : If by chance, we take 1 document and that the document is already in our local fund, there will be the problem because 2 isbn on 2 different documents whereas with the local barcode contained in the field 995$f of the unimarc file provided by the Central library, the copies are well distinct. The local barcode of the Central Library is not the same as the local barcode of our library.
If the SELECT retrieves more than one document for me it is clearly an error.
I hear your difficulty, with the argument another library may have chosen another field. Suggestions :
* allow the user to define the field of his "local barcode".
This is accomplished by a detailed book search. That is, it already exists. If I'm going to duplicate this in BA, than the purpose of BA, that of being brief and more convenient, is neither. So what is it then? A duplication.
And before you suggest more fields, do realize that that already exists in proper searches. So BA would become a lesser proper search with convenience in mind without being convenient. Like, what?
I don't understand this?
you want to exploit the isbn13 present in 70% of the books. you don't want to use the local barcode with the BA functionality when it is present in 100% of the books.
-> I am puzzled by this.
suggestion : why not make a pop-up with the fields used to put a barcode and let the user choose the field he will scan. (same demo as for the categories) if the user scans an isbn13 -> popup on isbn13 if the user scans an accession_number -> popup on accession_number if ... The query will be on which field to apply the search.
For all categories save for books, there is just one field (id) to identify the item. For books, there are unknown number of fields. Ignore ISBNs. What's left? callnumber, accession_number, alternate_id_1, deweynumber. And maybe other fields like title. I don't know because BQ offers uniqueness on ISBNs. Adding more fields to BA is duplicating processes where rich searches solve and I know I'll be reminded that those processes are tedious. Well, BQ cannot predict the uniqueness of your environment so it solves the total problem. If it could, it would need yet more definitions in the database which would be defined by the administrator.
I want my car to turn on conveniently. Put it in key and turn the ignition. I want it from inside my palace. That will cost you. I'm at the point: this is free software.
suggestion : why not make a pop-up with the fields used to put a barcode and let the user choose the field he will scan. (same demo as for the categories) if the user scans an isbn13 -> popup on isbn13 if the user scans an accession_number -> popup on accession_number if ... The query will be on which field to apply the search.
ISBN is 10. ISBN-13 is 13. Accession can be 10 or 13 or it can be 11 with a hyphen and the hyphen removed would be 10.
ISBN-13 starts with 978 or more now. So? Nothing prevents that from being an accession number.
My solution order is: accession_number, id, isbn-13. Simple and if your library is broken that's your fault. :D
If the user specifies the search field, he knows what he is putting in.
I'm running out of arguments to convince you so I give up : 70% will work, for the others we'll see.
If the user specifies the search field, he knows what he is putting in.
I'm running out of arguments to convince you so I give up : 70% will work, for the others we'll see.
So where's the convenience? I mean this entire argument is about convenience. Less-clicks. I want less clicks. My perspective on this less is greater than more is that it creates problems and by introducing more clicks the argument of less become absurd. See?
the first objective is always the less clicks.
I position 1 time on "book" and 1 time on accession_number
- book is by default for a category = zero clicks (thanks for the order) (0 clicks)
- if accession_number is first in the popup for search field (0 click)
I scan 100% of the books with a barcode_local with accession_number (0 click)
I click to put on the member field I click on validate
PERFECT
The categories : book, cd , dvd, newspaper, magazine, photography have an accession_number field. only grey literature doesn't have one.
I think that accession_number is the right field for the general case.
even if i don't use grey literature i make a suggestion for the TODO List : add the accession_number field for grey literature. :-)
thank you and see you soon
The categories : book, cd , dvd, newspaper, magazine, photography have an accession_number field. only grey literature doesn't have one.
I think that accession_number is the right field for the general case.
even if i don't use grey literature i make a suggestion for the TODO List : add the accession_number field for grey literature. :-)
thank you and see you soon
The primary key is id for every category. Journals and magazines are specialized with issue number and issue volume. Thus, (id, no, vol).
The accession number is a poor choice because it isn't unique. And since you love import and export, it breaks things if it's defined as being unique. Uniqueness is lost because there isn't anything agreed upon from library to library. It's specific to a library.
I agree to say: a unique field is perfect. But what about books printed before the generalization of isbn10 and then isbn13 : how do we do in these cases ?
The solution I found in the libraries I've been to: they scan their own local barcode and do not scan the isbn of the books.
Do you have a solution more adapted than accession_number?
Uniqueness is lost because there is no agreement between libraries. It is library specific.
In France: At our level, the exchanges with the central library (Départementale) is organized by the recommendation 995 so no we don't do what we want for our local barcode, if we want to exchange with the central library. (precisely to avoid duplication) https://www.transition-bibliographique.fr/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/unimarc-bibliographique-995.pdf
At the higher level (exchanges between central libraries) it is also organized by the French UNIMARC Committee (addition of unimarc fields) https://www.transition-bibliographique.fr/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/Description_FormatUnimarcEchange_Exemplaire_2022.pdf. (sorry I did not find it when french language)
small extract to explain What is the RNBCD? The RNBCD is the national directory of libraries and documentation centers which is a service of the Catalogue collectif de France (CCFr). Each library or documentation organization listed in this directory can have an RBCCN number (Register of libraries of the national union catalogue of serial publications or CCNPS).
Structure Currently, a code is composed of 9 digits, as follows
- department number (2 digits)
- INSEE code of the commune (3 digits)
- type of library (2 digits)
- sequential number (2 digits)
the local barcode has this prefix (the first 5 digits are sufficient)
Uniqueness is lost because there is no agreement between libraries. It is library specific.In France: At our level, the exchanges with the central library (Départementale) is organized by the recommendation 995 so no we don't do what we want for our local barcode, if we want to exchange with the central library. (precisely to avoid duplication) https://www.transition-bibliographique.fr/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/unimarc-bibliographique-995.pdf
At the higher level (exchanges between central libraries) it is also organized by the French UNIMARC Committee (addition of unimarc fields) https://www.transition-bibliographique.fr/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/Description_FormatUnimarcEchange_Exemplaire_2022.pdf. (sorry I did not find it when french language)
small extract to explain What is the RNBCD? The RNBCD is the national directory of libraries and documentation centers which is a service of the Catalogue collectif de France (CCFr). Each library or documentation organization listed in this directory can have an RBCCN number (Register of libraries of the national union catalogue of serial publications or CCNPS).
Structure Currently, a code is composed of 9 digits, as follows
* department number (2 digits) * INSEE code of the commune (3 digits) * type of library (2 digits) * sequential number (2 digits)the local barcode has this prefix (the first 5 digits are sufficient)
Did you write in France?