Quoting Sarah Breau <[email protected]>: > > Apple Paperbacks is, I believe, an imprint of Scholastic (more info > on imprints here). When I come across these, I put "An Apple > Paperback" in the notes field, since the imprint is not properly a > series (like "Harry Potter #4", for example). I think OL should > have a separate field for publisher's imprints, since it is not > otherwise clear where this info should go. Although it's not clear > to me how this information would be useful to anyone? Anyway, I put > it in the notes field.
I agree that imprints and "series" can be considered different things, although it isn't going to always be clear which one you have, especially when you are only looking at the metadata, not the book itself. There's an annoying grey area in there. The importance of the imprint seems to vary greatly by culture -- US publishers do not use the imprint as heavily as do publishers in Italy and France, for example. In those cultures, a publishers imprint has a similar meaning to a series like "Time-Life Great Books Series." The imprint often implies a selection by the publisher. I think that in library data the cataloger makes a decision about the importance of the imprint and whether or not to treat it like a series, and there isn't a simple answer for when you ignore them or include them in the record. Publishers' imprints are sometimes treated as notes, and I have also seen many that are entered into a particular series field that is used for "minor" series information. Note that Harry Potter is not considered a series in library data... the kind of "these are a connected story, read them in this order" type of series is totally unrecognized in library catalogs. A big loss for those of us who discover such a series accidentally by reading first one of the books in the middle! kc > > I never add the format from an error elsewhere in the record. > However, Amazon almost always lists the format, so you can check > there. In this case, I would feel confident adding "Paperback" to > the format field since Scholastic does not publish Apple Paperback > books in hardcover editions. I don't think "unknown" in the format > field is useful information; wherever I am not sure what the correct > data is I leave it blank, and if a record lists "unknown" in the > format field I remove the data. > > Sarah > -- Karen Coyle [email protected] http://kcoyle.net ph: 1-510-540-7596 m: 1-510-435-8234 skype: kcoylenet _______________________________________________ Ol-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://mail.archive.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ol-discuss To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send email to [email protected]
