-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: Serials Holdings Lists -- 2 messages
Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2000 12:59:19 -0600
From: "Pennington, Buddy" <buddy.pennington@rockhurst.edu>

Hi Beth,

I've looked at what the task force is doing and I think it's great.  I
do
believe that librarians and vendors will reach a point when the data can
be
easily downloaded into a library's system.  But I'm not holding my
breath.

Buddy Pennington
Acquisitions/Serials Librarian
Rockhurst University Greenlease Library
buddy.pennington@rockhurst.edu
#816-501-4143

2 messages:

1)-------------------------

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: Serials Holdings Lists -- Buddy Pennington
Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2000 12:02:12 -0500
From: Beth Guay <bg53@umail.umd.edu>

Hi Buddy,
Hopefully, our aggregator vendor friends will be supplying individual
libraries
with sufficient bibliographic records for the full text titles
subscribed to in
the databases. I certainly can envision a vendor supporting such a
service
(ongoing, of course, to keep up with changes in availability), and
an ILS supporting the loading and subsequent record management
(overlaying,
deleting, etc) of the records. Until then, I'm with you.

By the way, the PCC Standing Committee on Automation's Task Group on
Journals
in Aggregator Databases provides food for thought and a report of work
being
done in this direction in their: Final Report, January 2000:

<http://lcweb.loc.gov/catdir/pcc/aggfinal.html>

****Just my 2 cents worth...speaking for myself...positive
vibrations****

Beth Guay
Serials Cataloger, McKeldin Library
University of Maryland
College Park, Md. 20742

**********SNIPPED***********

> I agree that all your holdings information, including electronic
> serials,
> should be centralized into an OPAC, but until it becomes as easy for me
> to
> input 15,000 records for electronic serials into our OPAC as it is for
> me to
> create using MS Access and webpages, we will continue to use the second
> method.  As I said before, I can create a database of electronic
> holdings
> (around 15,000, including our library's physical holdings) that is
> accessible to our users via ASP pages in an afternoon.  I simply cannot
> fathom how I can do the same thing in our OPAC.
>
> Buddy Pennington
> Acquisitions/Serials Librarian
> Rockhurst University Greenlease Library
> buddy.pennington@rockhurst.edu
> #816-501-4143
>
>

2)-------------------------------
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: Serials Holdings Lists -- Buddy Pennington
Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2000 12:05:26 -0500
From: Lillian Gassie <lgassie@arl.mil>

856 fields are repeatable in the MARC record.  In your example, I would
go
for one MARC record with four 856 fields, each with a note in subfield z
targeting patrons of the different libraries, e.g. "Library ABC patrons
click here".  We don't do that over here but I have heard of other
libraries with union catalogs  who do this so that each branch's group
of
IP addresses are accessed through its' individual 856 field.  At my
site, I
sometimes use multiple 856 fields with the appropriate subfield z note:
one
for e-resources that let registered users in automatically,  and the
other
for new users to go to the registration page.

Lillian Gassie
Technical Services Librarian
US Army Research Lab
Aberdeen Proving Ground

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: Serials Holdings Lists -- 2 messages
Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2000 08:35:43 -0600
From: "Pennington, Buddy" <buddy.pennington@rockhurst.edu>

Concerning subfield Z of the 856 field.  Can you have multiple 856
fields in
a single MARC record, 1 for each library that has access to that
database?
For example, say four different libraries have access to the same
electronic
journal through the same database, but they have different URLs with
different passwords.  Could you have four 856 fields in a single MARC
record, or would you have 4 separate MARC records?  Either way, wouldn't
that be confusing to the average user?