Re: Serials Holdings Lists -- Buddy Pennington Stephen D. Clark 29 Feb 2000 14:45 UTC
-------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: Serials Holdings Lists -- 2 messages Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2000 12:59:19 -0600 From: "Pennington, Buddy" <buddy.pennington@rockhurst.edu> Hi Beth, I've looked at what the task force is doing and I think it's great. I do believe that librarians and vendors will reach a point when the data can be easily downloaded into a library's system. But I'm not holding my breath. Buddy Pennington Acquisitions/Serials Librarian Rockhurst University Greenlease Library buddy.pennington@rockhurst.edu #816-501-4143 2 messages: 1)------------------------- -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: Serials Holdings Lists -- Buddy Pennington Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2000 12:02:12 -0500 From: Beth Guay <bg53@umail.umd.edu> Hi Buddy, Hopefully, our aggregator vendor friends will be supplying individual libraries with sufficient bibliographic records for the full text titles subscribed to in the databases. I certainly can envision a vendor supporting such a service (ongoing, of course, to keep up with changes in availability), and an ILS supporting the loading and subsequent record management (overlaying, deleting, etc) of the records. Until then, I'm with you. By the way, the PCC Standing Committee on Automation's Task Group on Journals in Aggregator Databases provides food for thought and a report of work being done in this direction in their: Final Report, January 2000: <http://lcweb.loc.gov/catdir/pcc/aggfinal.html> ****Just my 2 cents worth...speaking for myself...positive vibrations**** Beth Guay Serials Cataloger, McKeldin Library University of Maryland College Park, Md. 20742 **********SNIPPED*********** > I agree that all your holdings information, including electronic > serials, > should be centralized into an OPAC, but until it becomes as easy for me > to > input 15,000 records for electronic serials into our OPAC as it is for > me to > create using MS Access and webpages, we will continue to use the second > method. As I said before, I can create a database of electronic > holdings > (around 15,000, including our library's physical holdings) that is > accessible to our users via ASP pages in an afternoon. I simply cannot > fathom how I can do the same thing in our OPAC. > > Buddy Pennington > Acquisitions/Serials Librarian > Rockhurst University Greenlease Library > buddy.pennington@rockhurst.edu > #816-501-4143 > > 2)------------------------------- -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: Serials Holdings Lists -- Buddy Pennington Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2000 12:05:26 -0500 From: Lillian Gassie <lgassie@arl.mil> 856 fields are repeatable in the MARC record. In your example, I would go for one MARC record with four 856 fields, each with a note in subfield z targeting patrons of the different libraries, e.g. "Library ABC patrons click here". We don't do that over here but I have heard of other libraries with union catalogs who do this so that each branch's group of IP addresses are accessed through its' individual 856 field. At my site, I sometimes use multiple 856 fields with the appropriate subfield z note: one for e-resources that let registered users in automatically, and the other for new users to go to the registration page. Lillian Gassie Technical Services Librarian US Army Research Lab Aberdeen Proving Ground -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: Serials Holdings Lists -- 2 messages Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2000 08:35:43 -0600 From: "Pennington, Buddy" <buddy.pennington@rockhurst.edu> Concerning subfield Z of the 856 field. Can you have multiple 856 fields in a single MARC record, 1 for each library that has access to that database? For example, say four different libraries have access to the same electronic journal through the same database, but they have different URLs with different passwords. Could you have four 856 fields in a single MARC record, or would you have 4 separate MARC records? Either way, wouldn't that be confusing to the average user?