Reminder - Format Field - ebook

[Paula]

All ebooks have format = ebook

Should further definition be required i.e. nook, epub this information goes in the Edition field.

Setting the Format to Nook Ebook or other variations is not GR standard.

[Debbie's Spurts (D.A.)]

I thought nook was being done either way since kindle edition was valid in format and have not been correcting. I will now make sure it's "format = ebook" and "edition=nook"

But, I thought rivka said that for ebooks we weren't specifying brand, file or drm types in the eition field? That is, a book should never say pdf, ePUb, mobi, epub 2.0, Adobe ePub, Adobe DRM ePub, Stanza, html, or anything else?

Plus does any nook edition having 978### isbn instead of #294### now need to say "nook edition epub" and 294# nook editions need to specify "nook edition pubit"?

If ebook format is kindle edition, do we put "mobi" in the edition field since it is mobi file type versus epub file type?

If we're supposed to be putting epub in the edition field now, does that mean every blasted ebook published by Random House, Smashwords, DAW, Penguin, Harper Collins, Avon, Harlequin, etc. needs to be edited to have "epub" in the edition field?

Not trying to argue and not sure where the thread is now; but, I seriously thought that under no circumstances was "ePub" to be in the book data anywhere, particularly not in the edition field.

[Banjomike]

Debbie wrote: "If ebook format is kindle edition, do we put "mobi" in the edition field since it is mobi file type versus epub file type?"

I think just putting "Kindle" is enough even though different generations of Kindle can read different Kindle formats ie AZW, KF8, MOBI. Let us not go there.

[Debbie's Spurts (D.A.)]

I don't want to go there with "epub" either.

I thought we just never mentioned the type of ebook at all even if was "epub." An exception for kindle/nook ones because they (a) had unique asin or bnid numbers, (b) some books only exist in kindle or nook formats, and (c) you had to have nook/kindle app/devices in order to read without illegally stripping the file protections. I think in some cases there are kobo editions if a unique 123### number.

(*shudders* thinking about Smashwords ebooks in epub format on Barnes and Noble site but also in a dozen other formats with same isbn = dozen editions initially, another dozen alternate cover editions when author updates cover the first time, then again...)

(Except for kindle, pretty much every reader and app supports epub so most publishers who say "ebook" mean "epub"—I'm not sure there's an easy way for us to tell if an ebook is epub without buying and downloading it. Usually the same isbn gets used for all the ebook formats publishers offer. The publisher's own direct download of an ebook, again exact same isbn, depending on the publisher will give the reader a choice of file types including epub [like for smashwords, getting into dozens of editions of one isbn if denoting file type in the edition field] or a single file option that may show on the book page or that you might have to wade thru some additional web pages to locate file type. To my knowledge none of the data feeds on goodreads specify file type for ebooks.)

I really hope we're just not supposed to ever put "epub" to start with.

That is, except for kobo, nook and kindle, I really hope we are not putting file types (including but not limited to "epub" and certainly not what version or brand of epub nor any specifics on type of copy protections or DRMs...) in the edition field. I seriously thought on one of the page numbering request threads that we were told not to put "epub" or any other file types for ebooks.

[Sandra]

I only ever use ebook, never a classification, cause my 978 is a pdf and someone else's may be a nook or epub. Who's to know?

Obviously, kindle is kindle.

[Debbie's Spurts (D.A.)]

@Paula, where are you getting that epub is supposed to be in edition field?

[Debbie's Spurts (D.A.)]

Kindle is kindle, and bnid 294#### is nook (specifically pubit version of epub; again, I really don't want to go down the road of specifying file type).

I don't think anyone should start putting file types in edition field until staff is back and can weigh in officially on the epub and other types. Or if someone can link to thread where they said to use epub in edition field.

I don't mind putting nook in format or in edition field; but, again, would be nice if staff would weigh in on what is standard (see both ways and guilty of both myself).

Ebook issues are really, in my opinion, starting to need a section in the librarian manual.

[Cait]

We only distinguish ebooks by format in the edition field if the book has different ISBNs for different formats which are otherwise the same, which is pretty rare. If there were a mobi edition with one ISBN and an ePub edition with a different ISBN, that could be worth noting in the edition field (although still not required). If there were a more significant difference between the editions, such as one being a first edition and the other being a second edition or the different editions having different covers, the format probably wouldn't be worth noting when first/second edition is clearer.

(None of this applies to Kindle editions, since they've contrived to get themselves cataloged entirely separately. This also doesn't apply to Nook ebooks which have been given 294- ISBNs instead of 978- ones, since those are always Nook ebooks and again cataloged separately. Also, ebooks in multiple formats only require multiple edition records when their ISBNs differ, so if there were a PDF ebook with one ISBN and a mobi edition and an ePub edition which shared a different ISBN, that would be cataloged as two editions. But that hardly ever happens!)

[Debbie's Spurts (D.A.)]

Paula wrote: "All ebooks have format = ebook

Should further definition be required i.e. nook, epub this information goes in the Edition field...."

Are you saying the format = "ebook" with edition = "kindle" even if has kindle asin? That format is always ebook and the menu option to set format to "kindle edition" is some sort of bug or something staff has since overriden to say we should never use?

[rivka, Former Moderator]

Cait wrote: "We only distinguish ebooks by format in the edition field if the book has different ISBNs for different formats which are otherwise the same, which is pretty rare. If there were a mobi edition with one ISBN and an ePub edition with a different ISBN, that could be worth noting in the edition field (although still not required). If there were a more significant difference between the editions, such as one being a first edition and the other being a second edition or the different editions having different covers, the format probably wouldn't be worth noting when first/second edition is clearer.

(None of this applies to Kindle editions, since they've contrived to get themselves cataloged entirely separately. This also doesn't apply to Nook ebooks which have been given 294- ISBNs instead of 978- ones, since those are always Nook ebooks and again cataloged separately."

Yes, yes, yes to all this. (I might agree with the last bit too, except I'm having trouble parsing it.)

[Vicky]

I think what Paula was trying to get across is that a lot of librarians/authors have been putting "nook book" or "kobo" or whatever in the format field which is NOT okay and it's being read into too much.

A Kindle Edition still gets the Kindle format.

A B&N Ebook gets the format eBook. A Kobo eBook gets the format eBook. A Google Play eBook gets the format eBook. A free .pdf from an author's website gets the format eBook.

If the user who ADDS the book thinks further clarification is needed, they can add it in the edition field - though it's not required, nor is it necessary for librarians to go through adding this information.

[Debbie's Spurts (D.A.)]

So, no one should be putting epub or other file types anywhere?

For ebooks, format is either "ebook" or "kindle edition".

Ebooks with unique id numbers other than an isbn beginning with 978, in edition field can specify vendor/ereader. For example, 294### numbers put "nook edition" in the edition field, 123## put "kobo edition" field.

No "epub" or other file type information in format or edition fields.

[Sandra]

You can add ibooks to your list Vicky, I came across quite a few of those yesterday that I changed to ebook :)

[Vicky]

Debbie wrote: "So, no one should be putting epub or other file types anywhere?"

No one has to put this information anywhere, but if there is some valid reason for it to be there (maybe the author actually did buy several ISBNs for different formats) then it's wouldn't be hurting anything.

[Debbie's Spurts (D.A.)]

And google play, palm, etc. (search keeps saying unavailable so I can't link but I know there were other threads, including one saying no to "epub" and one that listed a thorough series of some device/vendor/retail sites that might use unique numbers instead of he 978### isbn that is just a generic "ebook")

[Andrea]

Vicky wrote: "Debbie wrote: "So, no one should be putting epub or other file types anywhere?"

No one has to put this information anywhere, but if there is some valid reason for it to be there (maybe the author actually did buy several ISBNs for different formats) then it's wouldn't be hurting anything. "

It isn't common, but it does happen... I've definitely noticed some ebooks that have separate ISBNs for their epub and pdf edition (I posted an image of a catalogue once.)

[Cait]

Andrea wrote: "It isn't common, but it does happen... I've definitely noticed some ebooks that have separate ISBNs for their epub and pdf edition (I posted an image of a catalogue once.)"

Thanks for the examples, Andrea! Yes, that would be a case where we might put the format in the edition field to differentiate between the editions.

rivka wrote: "(I might agree with the last bit too, except I'm having trouble parsing it.)"

:) Sorry! Just trying to emphasize that one ISBN = one record if the only difference is the ebook format; we don't make alternate records like we would for an alternate cover.

[Emy]

In the case of Andrea's example, would it be worth putting a Librarian Note to explain why this is different from normal procedure?

[rivka, Former Moderator]

Probably.

[Sandra]

Otherwise, another librarian would probably delete it.