Print

Print


As a starting point, see the following papers presented to the MARC
Advisory Committee on this topic:

Discussion Paper No. 116: Bound-With Relationships in the MARC 21 Holdings
Format
http://lcweb.loc.gov/marc/marbi/dp/dp116.html

Proposal No. 99-02: Making Field 004 (Control Number for Related
Bibliographic Record) repeatable in the MARC Holdings Format
http://lcweb.loc.gov/marc/marbi/1999/99-02.html

This issue hasn't been completely resolved and further work needs to be
done. Options for dealing with the situation are detailed in the papers.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^^  Rebecca S. Guenther                                   ^^
^^  Senior Networking and Standards Specialist            ^^
^^  Network Development and MARC Standards Office         ^^
^^  1st and Independence Ave. SE                          ^^
^^  Library of Congress                                   ^^
^^  Washington, DC 20540-4402                             ^^
^^  (202) 707-5092 (voice)    (202) 707-0115 (FAX)        ^^
^^  [log in to unmask]                                          ^^
^^                                                        ^^
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^


> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Date:    Fri, 27 Oct 2000 15:18:41 -0500
> From:    Amy Stults <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: MARC Holdings for bound-withs
>
> Our library is beginning to create MARC Holding records for all materials,
> including monographs. When we purchased the software segment to do this,
> our vendor told us that we could tie together bibliographic records for
> bound-withs and analytics by repeating the 004 control field. But the MARC
> documentation for Holdings Data says that the 004 field is not repeatable.
>
> If anyone can give me some ideas for dealing with these bound-withs without
> going against the MARC standard, I would appreciate it very much.
>
> Thanks,
>
>
>
> Amy Stults
> Library, Technical Services
> Abilene Christian University
> ACU Box 29208
> Abilene, Texas 79699
> 915-674-2733
> [log in to unmask]
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date:    Mon, 30 Oct 2000 07:50:02 CST
> From:    Russ Johnson <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: [MARC Holdings for bound-withs]
>
> Amy,
> The simplest way to do bound-withs is to make a 500 note, then use the
> appropriate 700 field.  This gives justificatio for the title or author t=
> itle
> items.  Serials are done a little differently, but I do not have my Conse=
> r
> book with me to list the fields that are used there.
>
>  wrote:
> > Our library is beginning to create MARC Holding records for all materia=
> ls,
> > including monographs. When we purchased the software segment to do this=
> ,
> > our vendor told us that we could tie together bibliographic records for=
>
> > bound-withs and analytics by repeating the 004 control field. But the M=
> ARC
> > documentation for Holdings Data says that the 004 field is not repeatab=
> le.
> > =
>
> > If anyone can give me some ideas for dealing with these bound-withs wit=
> hout
> > going against the MARC standard, I would appreciate it very much.
> > =
>
> > Thanks,
> > =
>
> > =
>
> > =
>
> > Amy Stults
> > Library, Technical Services
> > Abilene Christian University
> > ACU Box 29208
> > Abilene, Texas 79699
> > 915-674-2733
> > [log in to unmask]
>
>
> Russ Johnson
> Medical Librarian
> Lutheran Medical School of Nursing
> SouthPointe Hospital
> 3547 S. Jefferson Ave.
> St. Louis MO 63118
> Phone: 314-577-5864
> Fax: 314-268-6160
>
> "Happiness is not a destination. It is a method of life." =
>
> Burton Hills
>
> ____________________________________________________________________
> Get free email and a permanent address at http://www.netaddress.com/?N=3D=
> 1
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date:    Mon, 30 Oct 2000 09:17:19 -0500
> From:    Frieda Rosenberg <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: MARC Holdings for bound-withs
>
> Hello,
>   Repeatable 004 was disallowed by MARBI after a discussion of underlying
> issues. Some felt that linking at the record level is not logical for a
> true bound-with, where the connection of the titles is physical but not
> bibliographical. (Many titles are "published with," but it would be hard
> to enforce a distinction.)  Unquestionably, repeatable 004 does not work
> in all cases.  In a small minority of cases (items of a title published
> within disparate, individually cataloged volumes of another title) it is
> not possible to link using the 004.
>
>   It was argued at the time that systems must allow duplication of
> barcodes, since the logical link for bound-withs is at the item level.  So
> this is something the you or your system user group needs to discuss with
> the vendor.  If you do adopt an interim solution against standards out of
> necessity, it would be advisable to document every use carefully so that
> the records may be corrected when an alternate solution becomes available.
>
> Best of luck,
> Frieda
>
> ----------
> Frieda Rosenberg
> Serials Cataloging
> Univ. of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
> [log in to unmask]
>
>
> On Fri, 27 Oct 2000, Amy Stults wrote:
>
> > Our library is beginning to create MARC Holding records for all materials,
> > including monographs. When we purchased the software segment to do this,
> > our vendor told us that we could tie together bibliographic records for
> > bound-withs and analytics by repeating the 004 control field. But the MARC
> > documentation for Holdings Data says that the 004 field is not repeatable.
> >
> > If anyone can give me some ideas for dealing with these bound-withs without
> > going against the MARC standard, I would appreciate it very much.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> >
> >
> > Amy Stults
> > Library, Technical Services
> > Abilene Christian University
> > ACU Box 29208
> > Abilene, Texas 79699
> > 915-674-2733
> > [log in to unmask]
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date:    Mon, 30 Oct 2000 09:11:57 -0500
> From:    Charley Pennell <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: MARC Holdings for bound-withs
>
> Amy-
>
>   No, you can't do this without going against the MARC standard, and
> furthermore, you shouldn't do it because your vendor, a staunch
> supporter of library standards, will almost certainly not be supporting
> this feature in the next generation of their own integrated library
> system.  This practice, like the split up 505, is a leftover from
> previous generation library systems where record and field lengths were
> limited.  The only thing I can say in favor of using multiple 004s is
> that there is quite a sizable clientele of this
> vendor-who-shall-remain-unnamed, one of whom is writing this message,
> who are already in the position of following this non-standard practice
> and are expecting a clear migration path from the vendor before
> migrating their holdings.
>
>         Charley
> _______________________________________________________________________
> """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
> Charley Pennell                          mailto:[log in to unmask]
> Head, Cataloging Department                        voice: (919)515-2743
> NCSU Libraries, Box 7111                             fax: (919)515-7292
> North Carolina State University
> Raleigh, NC  27695-7111
>
>        Adjunct Librarian, Memorial University of Newfoundland
> World Wide Web: http://sicbuddy.library.mun.ca/~charl8P9/chuckhome.html
> Cataloguer's Toolbox:                    http://www.mun.ca/library/cat/
> _______________________________________________________________________
> """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date:    Mon, 30 Oct 2000 11:38:39 -0800
> From:    Joanna Fountain <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: MARC Holdings for bound-withs
>
> Amy,
>
> I've never seen long-term good come from continuing obsolete and local
> practices as opposed to following current, generally accepted practices.
> Eventually the job of updating/upgrading happens, and is worsened by the
> delay.   So I recommend following current MARC 21 protocols.  Good options to
> 004 have been mentioned: note fields, linking fields...
>
> Joanna
>
> Joanna F. Fountain, Ph.D.
> Adjunct Faculty, GSLIS
> The University of Texas at Austin
>
> ************************************
> Amy Stults wrote:
>
> > Our library is beginning to create MARC Holding records for all materials,
> > including monographs. When we purchased the software segment to do this,
> > our vendor told us that we could tie together bibliographic records for
> > bound-withs and analytics by repeating the 004 control field. But the MARC
> > documentation for Holdings Data says that the 004 field is not repeatable.
> >
> > If anyone can give me some ideas for dealing with these bound-withs without
> > going against the MARC standard, I would appreciate it very much.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Amy Stults
> > Library, Technical Services
> > Abilene Christian University
> > ACU Box 29208
> > Abilene, Texas 79699
> > 915-674-2733
> > [log in to unmask]
>
> ------------------------------
>
> End of MARC Digest - 26 Oct 2000 to 30 Oct 2000 (#2000-32)
> **********************************************************
>