Main

October 29, 2008

Holdings in multiple formats - pt.2 Single record

Q:  Our library has holdings in multiple formats for a single publication.  How should we represent these holdings in our LHRs in OCLC?

 A.  It is possible (though not strictly according to standards) to represent your holdings in OCLC with a set of Local Holdings Records attached to a single bibliographic record.  Even though all the holdings end up together on the one bib record, it is still important to use separate LHRs for each collection and format.  This will naturally lead to more complexity in creating the Summary field for your library, though not necessarily to a more complex Summary holdings statement.

 For an example of this kind of holdings, see the TQI Local Holdings Records of  Nature.  (ISSN 0028-0836 / OCLC #1586310). 

When you look at this institution, you see a summary screen indicating multiple Local Holdings Records, each of which specifies a holding in a single format.  This allows us to code the physical description code (007) and collection and shelving information (both of which are in the 852) to be specified for each part of the holding without making any one of the LHRs overly complex.  Note that in the example, we have added a public note (863 $z) to the holdings, so that the different formats can be distinguished even in the summary display.

Among the most important codes to pay attention to are the lending and reproduction policy codes (elements 20 and 21 of the 008 field).  This is because OCLC's ILL deflection system looks at these codes and can override the general policy for an item based on the codes in the LHR.  When deflection looks at the OCLC Policies Directory to see whether an item may be loaned or reproduced, it checks the format of the bibliographic record to see which policies apply.  If you attach electronic holdings to a print record, the ILL deflection system will treat them as print holdings.  So, if you need to restrict borrowing based on format, you'll need to make sure the Lending and Reproduction policy codes are correctly coded in each LHR.

Note that while the collection of all the individual holdings could be complex, in this case, the net result is a fairly simple, open holding that starts in 1896 and continues into the present.  The note in the LHR Summary field indicates there are multiple formats, but doesn't specify which format corresponds to which years.  In another situation, you might want to be more specific.  The most important thing is to be specific in each LHR and to be consistent throughout your records.

October 28, 2008

Holdings in multiple formats - pt.1 Standard

Q:  Our library has holdings in multiple formats for a single publication.  How should we represent these holdings in our LHRs in OCLC?

A:  According to the current cataloging standards, each holding should be attached to a bibliographic record that describes its physical format as well as its publication information and history.  This means that, to adhere to the standards, we should have each Local Holding Record attached to the bibliographic record that corresponds to the physical format of the holdings: print holdings on a print bib record, microfilm holdings on a microfilm record, etc. 

This standard is something that we at MINITEX have tried to encourage staff of MULS participating libraries to follow, so many MULS libraries already have holdings that fit this standard.  For an example of this kind of holdings, see the TQI Local Holdings Records on the print and electronic versions of  The Christian Science Monitor.  (ISSN 0882-7729 / OCLC #10969332 and OCLC #35351012)

The advantage of this method of reporting, of course, is that the bibliographic record carries all of the descriptive elements so searchers know about the format of the issues your library holds, or that describe differences between the original publication and a reproduction or alternate format.  Each holding can be updated independently, and OCLC ILL deflection system recognizes the holding format from the format code in the bib record, so it can apply the correct policies to any ILL request.

The major problem with this separate record reporting method is that we need to let folks know that your library has holdings attached to more than one record.  We supplement this information by including a cross reference note in the LHR that directs users to the other records and  holdings in other formats.  To make these notes as useful as possible in as many environments as possible, we've decided to identify these additional records by both ISSN and OCLC number.  So, for example, the holdings on the microfilm record would refer the reader to the print record and read something like:

"For hardcopy see ISSN 0041-2136 / OCLC #23154681."

We'd want to include the cross reference notes in both the LHR summary field and in the public note field ($z) of the 863.  And, if we had holdings only in a non-print format that reproduced a print publication (e.g. we hold only microfilm of a print publication), we'd put a LHR on the print record that referred searchers to our microfilm holdings.

 

April 9, 2008

Should I use 863 fields or the 866?

When editing a Local Holdings Record that has its data in an 866 field, should the data be moved to  853 and 863 fields, and then would we delete the 866 field?

We try to avoid using the 866 field if the holdings can be expressed in the 853 and 863 fields.  So if you are editing a record that has an 866, check to see if you could use 853 and 863 fields instead. 

There are some holdings which do not use the 853/863 fields, such as temporary holdings.  But even these holdings aren't best represented in an 866 text field.

Remember that you can have multiple 863 fields in the LHR, which allows us to describe holdings with gaps.  Many of the records that ended up with 866s in the course of migration have gaps that the system couldn't automatically translate to the 863.  If you create 863 fields for this type of LHR, then the 866 info would be redundant and can be deleted. 

Almost the only time I've used the 866 field in an LHR is when I have a holding with lots of gaps, and I want to specify the gaps in our recent issues.  Then I can end up with multiple 863s that show what my holdings actually are in detail.  But sometimes I want to summarize or list older holdings with less specificity - because I don't want a long, hard-to-read LHR and because traffic in older items is generally lower than recent issues.  So I may use an 866 to summarize the earlier holdings.  Retrieve record #9813336 and look at the holding for MNU if you want to see an example of this type of holding.

 

February 21, 2007

File or list of MULS holdings

Q: Can I get a file or list of all of my library’s Local Holdings Records in OCLC? A: In February 2008,

OCLC announced the availability of a new Local Holdings Offline Product (LHOP), available to any library with Local Holdings Records in OCLC. 

This new product is the first successor to the old Serials Union List Offline Products (SULOPs) - what some libraries referred to as their "MULS printouts" -  that many of our libraries used to monitor their holdings in OCLC or to provide printed lists of periodical holdings info to their staff and patrons.  For information about these new products, see the blog entires from Feb. 15, 2008 with OCLC Local Holdings Offline Products in the title.

 

February 20, 2007

Updating Local holdings automatically

Q: Is there a way to automatically update our MULS records using data from our local system?

A: In the past, many libraries in our region updated holdings in OCLC using the Batch Updating service. Now that we have migrated Local Holdings Records out of Passport, the OCLC Local Holdings Batch Updating service is available again.

Libraries wanting to use this service do still need to deal with a couple of difficulties.

Continue reading "Updating Local holdings automatically" »

Sending updates to MINITEX MULS office

Q: We used to send our updates to MINITEX to be entered into OCLC. Has that changed?

A: For libraries that are MULS participants, but are not OCLC Governing Members, it has been possible to send updates to the MINITEX MULS office for our staff to input. If you used to send updates to MINITEX, you may continue to do so.

Libraries that are OCLC governing members are expected to make their own updates via the OCLC Connexion Browser. However, those libraries may also arrange to send updates to the MINITEX MULS office for input by the MULS staff. This service is provided on a fee-for-service basis, and should be arranged in advance.

Continue reading "Sending updates to MINITEX MULS office" »

Where is MULS now?

Q: Does MULS still exist? / Where is MULS now that PALS is gone?

A: MULS does still exist, but it is not accessible in as many ways as it used to be.

In 1987/1988 MULS gave up its status as an independent database to become a part of the OCLC Union List system, which allowed our holdings information to be shared not only regionally, but globally through the OCLC network. The Local Holdings data that we have stored and updated in OCLC all these years is still there, and continues to be available through OCLC First Search, Connexion and WorldCat Resource Sharing.

Continue reading "Where is MULS now?" »