LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for MARC Archives


MARC Archives

MARC Archives


[email protected]


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

MARC Home

MARC Home

MARC  March 2002

MARC March 2002

Subject:

Re: repeated 852 fields in marc holdings records

From:

KarenA <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

MARC <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Tue, 5 Mar 2002 12:31:56 -0500

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (188 lines)

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
> >
>

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

March 2024
February 2024
January 2024
December 2023
October 2023
September 2023
August 2023
July 2023
June 2023
May 2023
April 2023
March 2023
February 2023
January 2023
December 2022
November 2022
October 2022
September 2022
August 2022
July 2022
June 2022
May 2022
April 2022
March 2022
February 2022
January 2022
December 2021
November 2021
October 2021
September 2021
August 2021
July 2021
June 2021
May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
January 2002
December 2001
November 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
July 2001
June 2001
May 2001
April 2001
March 2001
February 2001
January 2001
December 2000
November 2000
October 2000
September 2000
August 2000
July 2000
June 2000
May 2000
April 2000
March 2000
February 2000
January 2000
December 1999
November 1999
October 1999
September 1999
August 1999
July 1999
June 1999
May 1999
April 1999
March 1999
February 1999
January 1999
December 1998
November 1998
October 1998
September 1998
August 1998
July 1998
June 1998
May 1998
April 1998
March 1998
February 1998
January 1998
December 1997
November 1997
October 1997
September 1997
August 1997
July 1997
June 1997
May 1997
April 1997
March 1997
February 1997
January 1997
December 1996
November 1996
October 1996
September 1996
August 1996
July 1996
June 1996
May 1996
April 1996
March 1996
February 1996
January 1996

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.LOC.GOV

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager