I think the short answer is that it is allowed but not encountered very
often.
The long answer....the MARC 21 Holdings Format does not specifically mandate
the method of handling of 852s, but offers a number of possible alternative
methodologies. The suggested methods are dependent upon the complexity of
the 852 being described and whether additional holdings fields are required
for complete description.
1. If a single location/single item is being described, the 852 MAY be:
a. embedded in the related bibliographic record (holdings record not
mandatory in this scenario) OR
b. contained in a single separate holdings record.
2. If multiple 852 location fields/multiple copies are being described, but
the 852 does not require associated holdings fields (i.e. 841, 007, 853-5,
86X, 87X etc.) the 852s MAY be:
a. embedded in the related bibliographic bibliographic record (holdings
record not mandatory in this scenario) OR
b. all contained in a single separate holdings record (all 852s in one
holdings record) OR
c. each contained in multiple separate holdings records (one 852 per
holdings record).
3. If a single 852 location field (one copy) with multiple items is being
described, and the 852 requires associated holdings fields (i.e. 841, 007,
853-5, 86X, 87X etc.) the 852 "holdings cluster" MAY be:
a. embedded in the related bibliographic bibliographic record as a
single unambiguous holdings information cluster (holdings record not
mandatory in this scenario) OR
b. contained in a single separate holdings record.
4. If multiple 852 location fields, each with multiple items are being
described, and the 852 requires associated holdings fields (i.e. 841, 007,
853-5, 86X, 87X etc.) each 852 and its associated fields must be
identifiable as an unambiguous "holdings cluster" and MAY be:
a. one cluster only may be embedded in the related bibliographic
bibliographic record as a single unambiguous holdings information cluster.
Any other 852 clusters must reside in their own separate holdings records.
OR
b. each 852 cluster is contained in separate holdings records (no 852 in
the bibliographic record)
5. According to the manual, in "special cases," (when all of the associated
holdings fields are equally applicable to multiple 852s), the 852s and the
holdings fields can be considered a single holdings cluster, and MAY be
handled with the options described for scenario 3. above.
The fact that a variety of methodologies are presented does not indicate to
me that all will (or even should) be available to catalogers in a single
automated system, since this would result in variant bibliographic and
holdings record structures in a single database. In the interest of
efficient and consistent database design, system vendors may support a
single or limited set of record structures and their associated
methodologies rather than every possible option with their consequent mix of
record structures. Rather, the standard's flexibility benefits both
libraries and vendors by allowing vendors to build from a set of equally
valid methodologies and record structures, and ultimately provides choice in
selection of systems for the library.
For example, a system supporting the holdings format may require a separate
holdings record for each holding even when the 852 could theoretically be
embedded in the bibliographic record for some titles. Having some bibs
linked to holdings records and some without no linked holdings records may
not be a good database design for this system. The same could be said for
having some holdings records representing a single 852 while others contain
multiple 852s. Your system may require a separate holdings record for each
copy so it can provide the optimal capability with the full range of fields
and description in the holdings format and at the same time utilize a
consistent internal record.structure.
Karen Anspach
Library Automation Specialist
Mandarin Library Automation, Inc.
P.O. Box 272308
Boca Raton, FL 33427-2308
Telephone: 1-800-426-7477 ext. 739
Fax: 1-561-995-4065
[log in to unmask]
[log in to unmask]
----- Original Message -----
From: "A. Ralph Papakhian" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Monday, March 04, 2002 2:25 PM
Subject: Re: repeated 852 fields in marc holdings records
> 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
> >
>
|