(Previous discussion continued)
Re: FW: Local Holdings for multiformat holdings Janie Jones 11 Dec 2006 17:38 UTC

Re: FW: Local Holdings for multiformat holdings Janie Jones 11 Dec 2006 17:38 UTC

I cannot reach the file on Local Holdings Maintenance Service using the url
you provided.  Can you re-direct me?

-----Original Message-----
From: SERIALST: Serials in Libraries Discussion Forum
[mailto:SERIALST@LIST.UVM.EDU] On Behalf Of Myers,Myrtle
Sent: Friday, December 08, 2006 8:26 AM
Subject: [SERIALST] FW: Local Holdings for multiformat holdings

 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

Myrtle Myers
Product Manager, Holdings & Local Data

-----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