Scopes
last revised 9.20.06
- scopes are subsets (separate files) of the entire database
- the entire database ("all") is also considered a scope
- Most places have "all" as the "default scope" - the one you go to when you first see the system. Our default is "all but slides"
- a new scope cost $1950
scopes can be defined as:
material types
branches
branch + material type
advantage of scopes
- users do not have to use the advanced kw screen or the modify search screen to narrow their search by pre-defined material types or locations. Many users don't even know they can do that.
- scopes defined by material type can have custom displays with format specific data
- when we implement Webbridge (puts buttons on the screen to redirect searches to other databases), it is possible to have scope-specific links. For example a button to redirect a search to a film database might only appear in the fvl scope
disadvantage of scopes
- high set-up & maintenance costs for opac coordinator (especially for scopes with customized pages) There are also setup options for each scope that have to be maintained.
- the more scopes there are, the more complicated the Roger home page and the scope drop-down menu on the result screens are.
current public scopes = 8
1. all
by format
2. journals & serials
3. maps & atlases
by location
4. ssh ref & docs
by location, but seems to be by format to end user
5. estuff (all estuff has loc=net. The scope was defined by loc code, but the loc code is synonymous with material type in this case)
6. fvl*
7. slides*
8 all but slides
* While fvl & slides appear to be format scopes to the end user, they have been defined by location. This means that video not in FVL or images not in the slide collection will not be in these scopes
The system doesn't keep statistics about the use of scopes - there is no way to know how much they are/aren't used.
Material types
m books
s serials (is already a scope)
u music scores
d cd audio
r records/tapes
v video formats
f films
l slides
g graphics/art
p maps/atlases (is already a scope)
c software
h archive & mss (has it's own unique limit)
Branches
aal Art & Architecture
bml Biomed
cul SSH
* sshrf SSH Reference - made into a pseudo-branch for scoping
* culd SSH Documents - made into a pseudo-branch for scoping
culsp Special Collections
fvl Film & Video (is already a scope)
gal CLICS
icul East Asian
irps IRPS
mcl Medical Center
srlf SRLF
slides - made into a pesudo-branch for scoping
Innovative has codes for "branches" as well as "locations" (physical shelving locations) within the branches. For example the branch "aal" is for all AAL items; the location "acc" is for AAL con circ.

If we want a scope for a "location," we might have to create a pseudo-branch the way they did for SSH ref & docs. We have 443 locations, so we won't want scopes for all of them! There is also an issue for cataloging with "branches" - they must be in the bib record instead of the item record where "locations" are.

* these pseudo-branches no longer appear on the limit screen
Background - images
1. Since the slide scope was defined by location, it really isn't an "image" scope
2. Records for images that appear in Roger are those that have individual catalog records. Images that are part of other projects (ex. photos from SIO archives) or part of collections (ex.some special collections materials), do not have catalog records for each item, so they don't appear in Roger as unique objects.
3. Records for the Rumsey collection of electronic maps & images were loaded. These show up in the "all but slides" scope because they aren't part of the slide collection.
4. Images that are from licensed databases - AP photo, ECHO, & Artstor images not owned by ucsd - do not have individual records in Roger
Questions to be answered
1. Should there be an image scope (as defined by material type) instead of a "slide" scope, understanding that not all the UCSD images will be in it? This could combine mattype graphic materials, as well as slides.

One possible problem: slides has a separate slide subject index and a slide call number index. Combining graphic materials & slides in one scope would mean the user would have to know what subject index to choose.

RISC: RISC wants an image scope, but they didn't discuss the problem with subject headings.

2. How do we see access to material in the DAMS? Will the user have to search in two separate places? If so, how will we indicate that our holdings are in two (or more) different places, or what system to search in?

not yet addressed

3. Should the "default" scope - the one you go to when you first get to Roger - continue to be "all but slides," or should it be changed to "all?"

RISC: decided they want to keep the current default scope.
Limit issues
background
- Limits are applied after a search is done. The limits are on two screens: the screen you get when the "modify search" button is clicked and on the advanced keyword screen.
- factoid - only .05% of searches are limited. There are no stats on which limit is used or how much the advanced kw search screen is used. (The keyword search on the main page is an "advanced" keyword search even though on a simpler page - the stats don't differentiate which screen was used for that search)
questions
1. We have too many limits - people find the page intimidating. Are there any that aren't used, or used so rarely, they can be eliminated?

We have 3 differently worded limits just for material types - do we need that much overlap?

We would lose some advanced searching capabilities if a limit was deleted. Using the electronic format limit as an example, if we deleted that limit, we would lose the ability to limit for floppy discs or CD-ROMs, etc. Are limits like that so useful that we should sacrifice clarity?

not yet addressed


2. The other way to simplify the limit screen is to take away the ability to choose more than one value at a time (ex. language=english or spanish) and go back to drop-down menus where you can only choose one value. There would still be a lot of limits on the page, but the page would look less cluttered.

Note: you can't just have some limits with multiple values - it's all or nothing.

not yet addressed