Summary of MilSer/MFHD responses jschmidt@RYERSON.CA 03 Nov 2003 14:12 UTC
Hello All;
Below is the summary of responses I have received so far. I have found that simply experimenting with MilSer has been invaluable. Its functionality has been fairly impressive so far and we have not found too many insurmountable issues. Thanks to all that replied.
Jane Schmidt
______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Please see my comments below (attached to Jane's questions).
Lu
========================
Wen-ying Lu (Although "Lu" is my last name, I am perfectly comfortable if you just call me Lu.)
Catalog Librarian and Linguistics Bibliographer
100 Library
Michigan State University
East Lansing, MI 48824-1048
Tel. 517-432-6123 ext. 191
FAX: 517-353-8969
e-mail: luw@mail.lib.msu.edu
This question is for those that are using Innovative/Millenium Serials
with Marc Format for Holdings Data. Ryerson has been running MilSer
for 3 years, and we now want to convert our retrospective holdings into
full MARC. Currently they are free-text summaries (Lib Has 1971 to the
present) with no details about gaps/missing issues, etc. We are in the
helpdesk queue waiting for an export profile to be set up.
(Lu) IF III can automatically convert the free-text holdings to at least a summary holdings in 853/863, e.g., in your example,
853 $a(year)
863 $a1971-
That'll be great. (/Lu)
Will 863 fields will be generated from the check-in cards when the
record is exported? For our currently checked-in titles we don't see
these fields display in MilSer, so we can't tell that they are really
there. But my understanding is that this information is stored in MARC
format as the issues are received.
(Lu) If III can really generate the 853/863 for holdings statement based on the check-in card information, that'll be great. And please let me know when that happens. The check-in card itself in Millennium is coded in 853/863 behind the scene. In Millennium, if you choose the card display to be MARC, instead of box display, then you'll see 853/863. So, it's there. The reason why I have reservation is that I heard Voyager told a library which uses Millennium and wants to migrate to Voyager that they can't convert the pattern and holdings data from Millennium to Voyager. I don't know if the problem originated on the III's side or Voyager's side.
The good news is that if you have 853/863 in your check-in record, you can expedite the creation of the check-in card in Millennium if the pattern data is included in 853. After you click on the button Create Card, everything will be set up and you just need to enter the first issue numbering of your holdings.(/Lu)
Do you display the 866 field to to the public (i.e. $a1976 to the
present. $zsome gaps) rather than 863 fields containing the detailed
gaps? 863s in records with broken holdings create a cluttered display
that is difficult to read. If you are displaying that information, do
your users like it? Is there a way to suppress those fields from the
OPAC but retain them for reporting purposes?
(Lu) If you have time and staff to convert all of your holdings to 85X/86X, that'll be the ideal. Our holdings have been in 866/867/868 for years. Due to time and staffing shortage, we decide to start using 85X/86X for any new standing order titles and any titles that have just had a major change. We also started to replace 866's with 853/863 for titles in our Current Periodicals Room as they are still on-going and we can keep open-holdings. For these existing titles, we only do summary holdings though unless we can ascertain the captions and holdings from our item records without having to run to the stacks to check.
Yes, you can have a mix of 866 and 853/863 and suppress 853/863 to avoid cluttered display due to gaps or whatever reason. You just need to make sure to use 3 for the 2nd indicator in 863 to suppress display and use the matching $8 in 866 to ensure the 866 gets displayed. In the following example, I suppressed the display of the 2nd and 3rd patterns with 2nd indicator as 3 in 863's so that the 866 |8 2 gets display instead. (The title is "Kleio" in our catalog http://www.lib.msu.edu if you want to take a look.)
863 41 |81.1|a1-5|b1-2|i1969-1973|j06-09|wg
863 41 |81.2|a6|b2|i1974|j10|wg
863 41 |81.3|a7|b2|i1975|j10|wn
863 43 |82.1|a8-10|b1/2-1/2|i1976-1978|j06-06|wn
863 43 |83.1|a11-14|b1/2-1/2|i1979-1982|wn
863 40 |84.1|a16-23|i1984-1991|wg
863 40 |84.2|a25-32|i1993-2000|wn
866 |82|av.8:no.1/2 (1976)-v.14:no.1/2 (1982)
863 40 |85.1|a33-|i2001-
853 20 |81|av.|bno.|u2|vr|i(year)|j(month)|wf|x06|ypm06,10|3v.5 pub May and
Sept.
853 20 |82|av.|bno.|u1|vr|i(year)|j(month)|wa|x06|ypm06
853 20 |83|av.|bno.|u1|vr|i(year)|wa
853 20 |84|av.|i(year)|wa
853 20 |85|a(*)|i(year)|wa
So, instead of
v.8:no.1/2 (June 1976)-v.10:no.1/2 (June 1978);
v.11:no.1/2 (1979)-v.14:no.1/2 (1982);
we display
v.8:no.1/2 (1976)-v.14:no.1/2 (1982)
since there is really no missing pieces except the publication pattern had changed. (/Lu)
I would also appreciate if someone could critique a test record that I
have created. Does Millenium automatically generate the NISO standard
punctuation, or does the standard have to be manually input?
(Lu)Millennium does automatically generate the NISO standard punctuations--every now and then. If you see our WebOPAC display of the title "Kleio", you'll see all the gaps displayed as semicolons even though some should have been commas (when |w g is in 863). Well, the punctuations had been displayed according to the NISO standard until the most recent release. I have asked the III's helpdesk to try to fix it.
You'll also notice that the display of chronology via 863 on the WebOPAC is not following the NISO standard. For example, it's Sept. 1999 instead of 1999:Sept. Our public services seem to like the non-standard form though. If you could ask III to at least provide an option for the standard display, that'll be great.
There are also a couple of other display mistakes which weren't there prior to the latest release, for example, you may see extra hyphens after month/season or separate line after a date. We'll just need to encourage III to get them fixed. (/Lu)
If anyone can be of assitance (or chooses to be!), we would be very
appreciative. Having no experience with this format is rather
challenging; new questions are arising each day. Even if anyone has any
hints or tricks to share regarding the implementation of MFHD into
Innovative, it would be a help.
(Lu) I applaud your willingness to give MFHD a try. It may be time-consuming at the beginning, but it'll save time in the long run. III is not fully compliant with MFHD yet, but neither is any other ILS. In comparison with other ILS's, III's is actually ahead of the others in some aspects. We just need to keep encouraging III to make all MFHD tags functional. (/Lu)
______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Jane;
Are you coming to CLA next year in Victoria? I am trying to organize a one day III user group conference, and a session on holdings might be a good idea. They are very difficult in III.
As to your questions. We just started over and are inputting holdings statements when some other change happens to the title. However, I can offer some answers below.
~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^
Penny Swanson
Knowledge Access Librarian
Douglas College Library
P.O. Box 2503
New Westminster, B. C.
Canada V3L 5B2
Voice: 604-527-5259
FAX: 604-527-5193
swansonp@douglas.bc.ca
Education Council Chair
Voice: 604-527-5384
>>> jschmidt@RYERSON.CA 10/30/2003 5:44:05 AM >>>
Will 863 fields will be generated from the check-in cards when the
record is exported?
NO. If you want this to happen you have to pay III for a special program. I find this really annoying!
For our currently checked-in titles we don't see these fields display in MilSer, so we can't tell that they are really there. But my understanding is that this information is stored in MARC format as the issues are received.
Only if you have set it up this way in your system options for serials. You should be able to click on the 'holdings' tab from the checkin record and see the holdings you have. IMHO, this is not a great way to record holdings as it gives a separate 863 field for each issue or volume (I think you can set it up for volumes).
Do you display the 866 field to to the public (i.e. $a1976 to the
present. $zsome gaps) rather than 863 fields containing the detailed
gaps? 863s in records with broken holdings create a cluttered display
that is difficult to read. If you are displaying that information, do
your users like it? Is there a way to suppress those fields from the
OPAC but retain them for reporting purposes?
Yes to the last question. I think it is a set up option. We use the 863 field but sometimes fudge it a bit. Because we are doing things retrospectively, and don't know which issues are missing for earlier volumes, we use 863 |zsome issues missing for gaps which were previously indicated by square brackets in 590 fields in the bib record.
You could look at our catalogue "library.douglas.bc.ca" and search for the title: "American journal of public health jph" to see the way the holdings display in the OPAC. (Click on the one that is not electronic)
I would also appreciate if someone could critique a test record that I
have created. Does Millenium automatically generate the NISO standard
punctuation, or does the standard have to be manually input?
Millennium is supposed to generate the punctuation, but sometimes it doesn't work.
If anyone can be of assitance (or chooses to be!), we would be very
appreciative. Having no experience with this format is rather
challenging; new questions are arising each day. Even if anyone has any
hints or tricks to share regarding the implementation of MFHD into
Innovative, it would be a help.
Also, if you want to retain your holdings records after you archive a checkin card, there is only one way you can do the archiving, otherwise all your holdings are archived along with the card! Let me know if you will have this problem and I'll scare up the procedure.
HTH. Please let me know about the III interest group meeting. I'd love to talk about holdings with others who are doing them. Also, if you receive any other messages that suggest I don't know what I'm talking about, I'd appreciate hearing.
Thanks.
Penny
Jane Schmidt, Serials Librarian Intern
Collections Team
Ryerson University Library