Email list hosting service & mailing list manager


Re: FW: Local Holdings for multiformat holdings Robert Dowd 08 Dec 2006 16:08 UTC

Colleagues,

Just to stir up the conversational pot a little ...

At the New York State Library, we were actively involved with the
United States Newspaper Program and became enamored with the idea of
adding all holdings to a "master" i.e. [in that case] print
bibliographic record ... how easy it makes it for researchers to locate
what they are after, with no guarantees about access, but that comes
with the territory.

These days (I've changed seats) the New York State Library actively
collects many electronic NY State government documents, with often no
way to verify if the item was/is in print ... it depends upon who you
get on the phone any given day.  And so, naturally, we catalog a lot of
state titles as electronic resources.

So already has been the case that a printed/published copy of a NY
State government document has arrived that we've already cataloged as
electronic.  We hesitate to 'duplicate' description.

In the same way that in the past we all agreed that microfilm is just a
reformat of the print, we are seriously considering the concept that,
these days, paper is just a reformat of the electronic.

We rarely/never catalog a CD or internet edition of an item that we
receive in paper, just adding those CD items to the paper collection and
linking to the web, even knowing that other libraries will catalog those
other formats ... they are welcome to.

Similarly, we may in the future rarely/never catalog a paper item that
we receive in electronic format first, even knowing that other libraries
will catalog the paper ... they are welcome to.

Yes, I know that our local holdings are different than those
represented in the international database, but if I were asked (and
that's a BIG IF), I'd support that we add paper holdings to electronic
titles in OCLC.

Regards,

Bob Dowd
Senior Librarian
Documents Section
New York State Library
Cultural Education Center
Empire State Plaza
Albany, NY 12230

>>> myersm@OCLC.ORG 12/8/2006 9:26:02 AM >>>
 To clarify, OCLC recommends libraries use the appropriate
bibliographic
record for creating local holdings in WorldCat whenever possible. This
allows OCLC's resource sharing system to accurately deflect requests
based on format-level policies and it will allow your holdings to be
accurately reflected if you choose to take advantage of other services
like WorldCat Collection Analysis. However, if your library or group
decides to build local holdings records for all formats on the print
bibliographic record we recommend that you build a separate local
holdings record for each format and code the 007 field in the Local
Holdings record to match the format being described in the record.
The
display in FirstSearch will be more accurate if you follow this
convention. The summary field should reflect the holdings for all
formats recorded on the paper bibliographic record.

The conversion of the Local Data Records from the old system was
completed in February 2006.  There are no plans to do any further
conversions of the data.  If there are holdings that are not
displaying
in the way you would like them to display you will need to manually
fix
those records or if possible take advantage of the Local Holdings
Maintenance program to have your holding updated automatically based
on
a file from your local system.  For more information about the Local
Holdings Maintenance service you can go to
http://www.oclc.org/batchprocessing/options/holdings/localdatarecords/de

fault.htm.

Myrtle Myers
Product Manager, Holdings & Local Data
OCLC

-----Original Message-----
From: Ian Woodward [mailto:iwoodward@MAIL.COLGATE.EDU]
Sent: Monday, December 04, 2006 8:44 AM
Subject: Re: Local Holdings for multiformat holdings

Our institution also made use of Passport to display the sum of print
and microtext holdings, indicating the microtext holdings in note
fields
in accordance with an approved format.   With the transition to
Connexion and MARC holdings format, the notes we had previously
entered
to indicate microtext holdings were deposited in the 852 or 866 fields
according to variations in features of said text that are obscure to
me.
I was advised by instructors at Nylink that the public note subfield
($z) of the 852 field is now an appropriate location to report one's
microtext holdings, but that the sum of print and microtext holdings
should be reported in the Summary Field.  However, they did say that
microtext holdings as reported in the note fields in Passport did not
make their way to the Summary Field in Connexion, and that no mass
retrospective repair project should be undertaken by libraries as a
fix
was in production.

One point that was left obscure to me, and that concerns the 007
field.
They were very clear that the 007/00 should not be set to indicate
"microform" unless the bibliographic record unless the 300 field
indicated that the bibliographic record was constructed to describe
microtext.  However, the 007/00 can be set at "unspecified", and, that
having been done, the 007/01 can be set at 'multiple physical
formats'.
Does anyone know under what circumstances these options are intended
to
be used?  IW

I.  Woodward
Serials Office
Colgate University Libraries
201L McGregory Hall
13 Oak Drive
Hamilton, N.Y. 13346
Ph.:   315-228-7306
Fax:   315-228-7029