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) > ********************************************************** >