Hi,
I forgot to add that it seems odd for a system to allow creation of
multiple 852's that have no subfields a or b, since the purpose of the
852 is to show location. I guess it simplifies programming for display
purposes, or something like that.
Marilyn
"A. Ralph Papakhian" wrote:
>
> hi,
> this is interesting. but it doesn't seem to be the application
> of repeated 852's suggested in the format (MARC21 Holdings):
>
> "Field 852 is repeated when holdings are reported for multiple copies of
> an item and the location data elements vary. When other holdings
> information fields are associated with multiple 852 fields, the
> configuration of the holdings report must be considered to assure that
> these fields are implicitly linked. A description of the treatment
> required for 852 holdings information clusters is given under the heading
> Separate and Embedded Holdings Information in the Introduction to this
> publication. Subfield $8 is used in this field to sequence multiple
> related holdings records. "
>
> is it "standard" to have repeatable 852 fields for copies in the
> same location?
> --ralph p.
>
> A. Ralph Papakhian, Indiana University Music Library
> Bloomington, IN 47405 812/855-2970 [log in to unmask]
> co-owner: [log in to unmask]
>
> On Fri, 1 Mar 2002, Gary Oliver wrote:
>
> > Marilyn and Ralph,
> >
> > We use multiple 852 fields for multiple copies of a work in the same
> > location. If we have multiple holdings in multiple locations, each item
> > requires its own holdings record. You will not be able to see the holdings
> > record in our pac, but you can see how it looks. I have supplied a copy of
> > one holdings record with multiple 852s. This record was made using
> > profile that lists the fields 004, 007, and the first 852. The subfield t
> > in the 852 is removed, then a new 852 field is added that includes the
> > piece level designation and copy information. Then another 852 is created
> > and so on for all copies. Our system will not allow us to create multiple
> > 852s which all have subfields a, b, h,and i or we would be able to use one
> > holdings record for multiple locations.
> >
> >
> > 004; ;a AGE-4154 $
> > 007; ;a ss lunjlc----e $
> > 852; 10;a TxAbC $b 010107 $k PTC $h 780 $i Ab5r 1993/94 no1 $
> > I 852; ;p 0306402387378 $t 1 $
> > I 852; ;p 0306402387386 $t 2 $
> > I 852; ;p 0306402387394 $t 3
> >
> >
> > gary
> >
> > At 10:45 AM 2/27/02 -0500, you wrote:
> > >Hi,
> > >
> > >I would also like to find out if anyone is repeating the 852 in the same
> > >holdings record. Please reply to the list. I happen to know that our
> > >Voyager system may allow you to repeat, but it cannot use the second 852
> > >to influence the system in any way. We are required to create a separate
> > >holdings record for multiple copies in different locations. If we have
> > >multiple copies in the same location, we are encouraged to do the same.
> > >(However, numerous Voyager sites have been set up to attach item records
> > >for multiple copies in the same location to a single MFHD, and this can
> > >work, in a way.) If we want to attach separate check-in records and pub
> > >patterns for a serial copy, that copy definitely requires a separate
> > >MFHD.
> > >
> > >Marilyn Quinn
> > >Rider University
> > >
> > >"A. Ralph Papakhian" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > greetings,
> > > > the 852 field in MARC21 holdings is repeatable.
> > > > does anyone have any concrete examples of repeated
> > > > 852 fields in single MARC holding records?
> > > > if so, could you direct me those?
> > > > thanks in advance,
> > > > --ralph p.
> > > >
> > > > A. Ralph Papakhian, Indiana University Music Library
> > > > Bloomington, IN 47405 812/855-2970 [log in to unmask]
> > > > co-owner: [log in to unmask]
> >
> > gary oliver Abilene Christian University
> > [log in to unmask] ACU Box 29208
> > 915-674-2343 Abilene, Tx 70699
> > 915-674-2202 (fax) PfW Listowner
> >
> >
> > Only God can make a tree
> > Joyce Kilmer
> >
|