Email list hosting service & mailing list manager

Level 4 vs. Level 3 Holdings (2 messages) Birdie MacLennan 10 Aug 1994 17:27 UTC

2 messages, 147 lines:

Date:         Wed, 10 Aug 1994 10:06:12 -0500
From:         "Kevin M. Randall" <kmr@NWU.EDU>
Subject:      Re: ANSI Level 4 vs. ANSI Level 3

At 09:06 AM 8/10/94 EST, Kathleen Thorne wrote:
>I've been reading all the queries/replies/queries/problems from Susan,
>Kevin, et al., with horror and find myself wondering:  are we the only
>ones left who use Level 3 holdings???

Yes, Kathleen, you're the only ones!  NISO has been wanting to get rid
of Level 3 but you're still holding on to it!  ;)  But seriously...
I really have no idea how many libraries are doing EITHER level of
holdings.  There seems to be quite a bit of silence about it.

>Since our patrons and staff can all view the check-in record on Innopac,
>we decided years ago that Level 3 would suffice quite nicely, thank you;
>if our holdings say "v.7 (1982)-    "   the patrons can look at the
>checkin record to find out whether we have the current issue they need;
>if we do, it's checked in; if we don't, it says MISSING or EXPECTED.
>Once a volume is bound, the Level 3 holdings (since the statement is
>inclusive) include all issues; if we lack any issues, there is a note
>stating "vol.__ incomplete" ; eventually our item records for bound vols.
>will record which issue(s) is/are missing.

This is something like the approach that NOTIS was expecting its
customers to take:  record retrospective holdings in the MARC holdings
record, leaving the final statement open with a hyphen; then let the
LSER record (which sort of uses something like the 85X/86X paired fields,
from what I understand) take care of all subsequent receipts/holdings.
But since NOTIS will display only a limited number of current
issue receipts, it might look like there's a large gap in the holdings.
(Believe me, from what I hear from the "front lines" here, unless the
public catalog states EXPLICITLY what we have, some people will think
we don't have it.)

>We have neither the time nor the staff to handle the day-to-day volume of
>work that Level 4 holdings entail -- and I'm not really sure I would want
>to do it anyway: if details of holdings can be located just as quickly by
>other means, I think we're simplifying using a library to the point of
>spoon-feeding .... and that's not really fair to the users: before long,
>few patrons will have the faintest idea of how to find out anything for
>themselves.  And then what happens when the electricity goes off???  Only
>we chosen few will know how to find things in a library?

Using Level 4 will not be much of a change for us in terms of staffing
needs, although it will initially slow things down because of having to
learn something very different.  We already update volume holdings
records for all volumes added to the collections--both "annuals and
irregulars" which are added as soon as they are received, and periodicals
which are added at the time they are sent for binding.  The people
checking in the annuals/irregulars add them to the volume holdings (it's
basically just part of one person's duties); the periodicals are added
by a person who spends half his time on volume holdings maintenance
(adding periodicals, transferring and withdrawing) and the other half
of his time processing invoices.

I'm not sure that it's a matter of "spoon-feeding" the users; I look at
it as considering the volume holdings and order records to be the
more or less authoritative records of what the library holds; the
records will contain information of use to both staff and patrons.  (And
we don't completely spoon-feed them here; they have to figure out strange
things like "Where in the world are the books?" when they come into the
building!)  (And as far as the electricity goes:  well, we're ALL in
trouble when it's off; but since we can't find our way through the stacks
then anyway...)

>So, Kevin/Susan/and others, where do you get the staff & time for Level 4?

Since we haven't started yet (we plan to start next month), we don't know
for sure, but we should be able to get by as we have before (see above).

Kevin M. Randall
Head, Serials Cataloging Section
Northwestern University Library
Evanston, IL   60208-2300

phone:  (708) 491-2939
fax:       (708) 491-8306

Date:         Wed, 10 Aug 1994 11:02:16 EDT
From:         Steve Savage <SMSAVA01@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
Subject:      Level 3 holdings

To contribute to the current discussion about the use of the ANSI standard
for holdings information:

The largest serials processing unit in the University of Kentucky Libraries
is in the process now of deciding how we will convert holdings information
to MHLD records in our NOTIS database.  We've decided to use one of the
options within Level 3.

Basically, we will be using Level 3, but taking the option to record
gaps within those holdings statements.  We plan to record exactly what we
have (which would seem to be a Level 4 statement, on the surface), but
for current titles, we will use an open-ended hyphen starting with the
first issue after the last gap.  An example makes it clearer:

             v.1:no.2 (1965: June 3)-v.3:no.4 (1968:July 1),
             v.3:no. 6(1968: July 15)-v.6:no.12 (1969: Sept. 5),
             v.6:no.14 (1969: Sept. 19)-

(I completely fabricated that information, so the dates and volumes
numbers may not quite match up.)

This statement would tell people what we don't have, and indicate that
we should have everything since v. 6, no.14.  With this method, we won't
be misleading our patrons or public service staff but indicating or implying
we have issues that are in fact not in our collection, and we will only
have to update the record if we fill in gaps, discover other gaps we will
not fill with replacement issues, and bind a current volume
as incomplete after failing to find replacement issues.

So, with the above example, if we are binding the first 3 months of
1994 and we are the Jan. 11 issue, and can't get a replacement for
it according to our usual procedures, we will have to update the
holdings statement so that last line would be change to two line:

         v.6:no.14 (1969: Sept. 19)-v.29:no.22 (1994: June 4),
         v.29:no.24 (1994: Jan. 18)-

We do not presently use an online check-in system that would display
unbound holdings in our OPAC, so our MHLDs have to cover current receipts
in some fashion.  If we ever do have a system that does that, we probably will
have to revise how we use open-ended hyphens in MHLDs.

We've tried to find a workable mid-point between the public service
need for holdings records that indicate exactly what we have (we consider that
to be the fundamental purpose of our serials control work), and the
demand that maintaining these records will place on our already over-burdened
processing staff.

The situation described above is still just in the middle of the decision-
making phase. If anyone can point out significant problems with anything
detailed above please let me know!  Any other comments would be very
welcome, too.

Steve Savage
University of Kentucky Libraries
Lexington, KY  40506-0039
Phone:  (606) 257-8387