LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for PCCLIST Archives


PCCLIST Archives

PCCLIST Archives


PCCLIST@LISTSERV.LOC.GOV


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

PCCLIST Home

PCCLIST Home

PCCLIST  December 2011

PCCLIST December 2011

Subject:

Re: Provider-Neutral records and batch processes

From:

"McDonald, Stephen" <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Program for Cooperative Cataloging <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Thu, 15 Dec 2011 19:15:41 +0000

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (163 lines)

Sure!  Here's how we check the 856 fields:

We put the resulting records from the load into a review file in Create Lists (call this Review File A).

We examine some of the records to identify some bit of text unique to the URLs for this vendor.

We prepare a Global Update of Review File A, changing the 856 fields that match that unique text into 956 fields.  But before we execute the update, we carefully examine the Preview of the update.  This will show us those records that don't have a URL for this vendor, or have multiple URLs for this vendor.

For those missing a URL for this vendor, we go to the vendor's site to find the correct URL to add to the record.  For those with multiple URLs, we determine whether to delete any.

Once the records are fixed, we redo the Preview and finish the Global Update, changing the matching URLs to 956 fields, making sure every record gets at least one 956 field.

We can use Global Update on Review File A to change the |3 and |z of the 956 fields to the text we want, and add our proxy (if we haven't already done it in pre-load preparation).

Then we deal with the 856 fields for other vendors.  Prepare a Global Update on Review File A to change all remaining 856 fields to 956 fields.  Before executing the update, examine the Preview.  If you see any 856 fields you want to delete rather than keep, uncheck the box for that record.  Execute the Global Update.  Do another Global Update to delete all remaining 856 fields.

(Alternatively, you could do a Global Update to delete the 856 fields, and uncheck the boxes for the ones you want to keep.  In either case, if you aren't sure whether to keep or delete the URL, check the bib record itself, looking for 910 fields.)

Do one final Global Update to change the 956 fields to 856 fields.


This is unfortunately a lot of Global Updates, and I'm currently examining how to reduce the number of Millennium transactions for post-load editing.  This will probably mean moving more of the editing to the preparation stage (using MarcEdit), but at least some of the 856 checking has to happen in Millennium, after overlaying.

					Steve McDonald
					[log in to unmask]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of D. Brooking
> Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2011 12:03 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] Provider-Neutral records and batch processes
> 
> Thanks, Steve!
> 
> Yes, I would like more details, since we also use the III system. In
> particular, for the following paragraphs, are you examining records
> manually one by one? Do you use Create lists and Global update
> to help automate this part?
> 
> "In the post-load editing, we check for instances of multiple 856
> fields
> and determine whether we need to delete any.  The
> 910 fields help determine whether we have access from multiple vendors
> and
> need to keep both links.  Occasionally there
> are multiple 856 fields from the same vendor, especially if it is an
> updated record from that vendor.  In those cases, we
> determine whether they both resolve to the same e-book (we pick one to
> delete), whether one is an old broken link (delete
> it), or whether they point to multiple volumes of a multi-volume item
> (keep them all).
> 
> If the vendor uses batch loads to identify records to be deleted, we
> use
> this process to determine whether to just delete
> the 856 for that vendor (if we still have access from another vendor),
> or
> whether to suppress or delete the record itself
> (no other vendor access)."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ************
> Diana Brooking             (206) 685-0389
> Cataloging Librarian       (206) 685-8782 fax
> Suzzallo Library           [log in to unmask]
> University of Washington
> Box 352900
> Seattle WA  98195-2900
> 
> On Thu, 15 Dec 2011, McDonald, Stephen wrote:
> 
> > Here is a summary of what we do here at Tufts.
> >
> > For each e-book batch load, we add a local 910 field with the name of
> the package and date (usually the date of the batch from the vendor),
> e.g. "E-BOOK Springer Complete Collection 2011-12-15".  If later we
> discover a problem with a collection, or a specific load, or drop a
> particular vendor, we can do a search on this field.
> >
> > We maintain a spreadsheet listing every batch load, including source,
> size, and the value of the 910 field, to make sure we mark things
> consistently and so we know how to search for a particular load.
> >
> > The spreadsheet also has columns for the date of preparation, date of
> load, and date of post-load editing, so we can keep track of what has
> been done and what is pending.
> >
> > When we load, we protect both the 856 field and the 910 field, so
> that if it overlays an existing record we still have that critical
> information.  The resulting record will have both the new fields and
> the protected fields from the older record.  Unprotected fields are
> deleted or replaced with the new fields.
> >
> > We make some bulk changes in preparation, and some in post-load
> editing.
> >
> > In the post-load editing, we check for instances of multiple 856
> fields and determine whether we need to delete any.  The 910 fields
> help determine whether we have access from multiple vendors and need to
> keep both links.  Occasionally there are multiple 856 fields from the
> same vendor, especially if it is an updated record from that vendor.
> In those cases, we determine whether they both resolve to the same e-
> book (we pick one to delete), whether one is an old broken link (delete
> it), or whether they point to multiple volumes of a multi-volume item
> (keep them all).
> >
> > If the vendor uses batch loads to identify records to be deleted, we
> use this process to determine whether to just delete the 856 for that
> vendor (if we still have access from another vendor), or whether to
> suppress or delete the record itself (no other vendor access).
> >
> > The big benefit of using the 910 fields is that we have a complete
> tally within the record of when it was loaded, which vendors provide us
> access, and how many times the record was updated by a particular
> vendor.  One problem is that if we have to get non-OCLC records from
> the vendor, we are unlikely to match it to another vendor's records for
> the same items, and we can end up with multiple records.  Fortunately,
> only a few vendors giving us non-OCLC records are likely to have
> overlapping collections.
> >
> > Our ILS is III's Millennium.  We have found some methods with Create
> List and Global Update that make it easier to check the 856 fields.  If
> you would like the specific process, I can send it to you.
> >
> > 					Steve McDonald
> > 					[log in to unmask]
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging
> >> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of D. Brooking
> >> Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2011 2:25 PM
> >> To: [log in to unmask]
> >> Subject: [PCCLIST] Provider-Neutral records and batch processes
> >>
> >> Has anyone out there come up with any workflows for dealing with the
> >> maintenance of P-N records, especially with regard to batch loading,
> >> updating and deleting; bib records, any attached records, and
> handling
> >> of
> >> urls?
> >>
> >> There's not a problem if we have a P-N record with just one vendor
> url.
> >> But if we get a title from more than one vendor, maintenance is
> proving
> >> to
> >> be quite the puzzle.
> >>
> >> I'd be extremely grateful for any insights. Thanks.
> >>
> >> ************
> >> Diana Brooking             (206) 685-0389
> >> Cataloging Librarian       (206) 685-8782 fax
> >> Suzzallo Library           [log in to unmask]
> >> University of Washington
> >> Box 352900
> >> Seattle WA  98195-2900
> >

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 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
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 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
July 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
October 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
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 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

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.LOC.GOV

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager