Re: holdings conversion (fwd) Marcia Tuttle 21 Mar 1993 06:42 UTC
---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Sat, 20 Mar 1993 15:17:51 -0800 From: Mitch Turitz <turitz@SFSUVAX1.SFSU.EDU> Subject: Re: holdings conversion (fwd) At San Francisco State University we are currently converting our serials and periodicals into the USMARC format for holdings as supported by the Geac Advance serials check-in system. We also inquired about tape-loading the information and found that it is not available. Even if the pub. pattern information was available, we would still have to manually go into each title to decide on the claim codes and receipt delays for EVERY title. This is unavoidable as each library will want to decide for themselves what period of time should elapse before a claim is generated for overdue issues. Another thing which has to be decided on individually is what the vendor codes, funding codes, and even selector codes are for each title. That information would not be available from shared databases. Such information is necessary if the system is going to check the allocations of funds for each selector and determine if a selector/fund is overspent! Although we are just beginning the project the observations I can give you so far are: Inputting of publication pattern data for titles is VERY labor intensive. It is comparable to retrospective conversion of bibliographic data for serials and, in many cases, can even take longer then original cataloging. Do NOT consider trying to set up check-in patterns for the ENTIRE history of a serial. Just start off from the most current issue(s) and change the pub. patterns as you receive new issues with changed frequencies. Putting in the whole history of a periodical is not worth it. Your system should have some way of generating a summary holdings note where you can explain in free text previously checked-in issues. I recommend having both the check-in cards (with the fund codes and selector as well) and a recent issue of the title in hand when creating the check-in record. DO NOT expect to reduce staff workloads by implementing ANY automated system. I have been working with library automation for MANY years and have yet to see any example in any of the libraries where I have worked, of automation saving staff, reducing workloads, or lowering overall budgetary requirements. Your local system MUST have adequate documentation BEFORE you can begin such an undertaking. The need for good documentation must NEVER be underestimated! In extreme cases, making your own documentation is preferable to waiting for documentation which is "still being worked on". -- Mitch Turitz Serials Librarian San Francisco State University