I can report that, when we encounter $0 with identifiers, we leave them in (but don’t go on to add them or asked that they be added; this is being discussed due to issue mentioned below).
Our new ILS includes some out-of-the-box authority jobs that review records each night and links certain (1XX, 6XX, 7XX) headings in new records to appropriate authority records from LCNAF or LCSH, as well as update the headings as the authority headings change. These jobs in our ILS continue to wrongly link FAST headings, with $2 fast and $0 [fast identifier], to LCSH headings. I’ve yet to see that if once wrongly linked, and the LCSH heading changes, then the system will change the FAST heading that it is believe to be LCSH, but in theory this will happen.
I’ve reported the issue to the vendor but have yet to hear back, and these are jobs that we cannot edit - you either turn them on or off, there is no in between. I bring this up as an example of where I hope the vendors are also working on how to best handle identifiers (for these jobs seems to be just checking the text strings without regard to other present information in the field, like identifiers or vocabulary source), while catalogers continue to develop their own workflows and decisions on them. I’d love to start pulling in identifiers for all such headings (as I do in my non-MARC work), but the current system doesn’t seem ready for this, especially if we’d have to repair the authority corrections each day. If I have any developments on this, I’ll be happy to share to the group.
Cataloging & Metadata Librarian
University of Tennessee, Knoxville
306Z1 Hodges Library
[log in to unmask]
> On Apr 4, 2015, at 4:07 PM, Karen Coyle <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> On 4/4/15 12:27 PM, Steven Folsom wrote:
>> Yes, we will be working with MARC for a while longer. I, too, hope in the meantime that we make strides in sanctioned additions and work arounds to MARC that position us for better days, e.g. more $0 URI’s that are dereferenceable.
> Just want to note that some of the same vendors who do authority updates will also add the appropriate URI in the $0 of the returned record. I've been told, however, that this service is not being requested by customers. Getting those $0's filled in would make it possible for all library systems to produce useful schema.org markup in their displays. It would also make any conversion to BIBFRAME or RDA in RDF much more economical because the identifiers would already be available.
> So, is anyone doing this? Getting the $0's filled in? Do you have info to report from your experience?
> Karen Coyle
> [log in to unmask] http://kcoyle.net
> m: +1-510-435-8234
> skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600