Greetings All,
Thanks to everyone who responded to the message that I posted on Monday,
Dec. 9, re. Use of the 856 field in MARC Holdings records. I received 9
responses, which I had offered to summarize. Rathering than trying to
summarize in my own words, I obtained permission from each of the authors
- here below - to repost their message(s) to SERIALST. The responses, as
you can see, are rich and varied. Most indicate that those who are using
the MFHD are copying and pasting the URL from either the bib record or
another source. Only one automated solution for copying the URL from bib
to holdings records is cited in the info. below.
Thanks again to all who responded. It's helpful to get a sense of what
others are doing in this area.
kind regards, et à bientôt, -- Birdie
Birdie MacLennan
Coordinator, Serials & Cataloging
University of Vermont
bmaclenn@zoo.uvm.edu
9 messages, 350 lines:
(1)-------------------
Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 08:51:31 -0500 (EST)
From: Nancy Burns <nburns@phoenix.Princeton.EDU>
Subject: Re: Using 856 in MARC Holdings records
On Mon, 9 Dec 2002, Birdie MacLennan wrote:
> We are in the process of re-evaluating our OPAC displays for e-journals
> and are wondering how many places out there are putting URLs into MARC
> holdings records, as opposed to MARC bibliographic records. Or are some
> places putting the URL in BOTH the bibliographic and holdings records?
We generally keep the URL only in the bib record. If it had been
purely a question of OPAC display, we'd probably have opted to use the
holdings record instead. However, it seemed wrong from a shared
cataloging standpoint to remove URLs from bib records, and we didn't want
to have to record & maintain them in two places. Moreover, searchability
is better on bib record fields, and maintenance is quicker, since you can
search a title and edit the first screen that comes up (the bib).
However, in cases of multiple e-versions of the same title, we
thought it would be too confusing for patrons to figure out which URL went
with which online holdings statement, so in those cases (no longer rare)
we do include the URL on the holdings record in addition to the bib. For
an example, go to our catalog -- http://catalog.princeton.edu -- and
search Journal Title: International security.
> If you are adding URLs to holdings records, have you developed an
> automated solution for moving URLs from bibliographic to holdings record?
> Or are you manually copying and pasting, or otherwise handkeying them into
> an 856 in the holdings record?
Manually copying and pasting.
> We are a Voyager site --
We also use Voyager.
>currently using a single-record approach for cataloging e-journals.
We also use the single-record approach if we have the print.
> Some of our records contain holdings for multiple print locations (with
> holdings) ... so if you are using MARC holdings to display URLs and if
> you have multiple URLs, are you using more than one MARC holdings
> record?
Yes, we use a separate MFHD for each e-version, though we use the
same location code on all of them. To give prominence to the availability
of e-versions, the electronic resource location has been coded to appear
always first, before any print locations for the same title.
Hope this is helpful.
Nancy Burns
Cataloging Unit IV (Serials)
Princeton University Library
nburns@princeton.edu
(2)-------------------
Date: Mon, 09 Dec 2002 16:15:17 -0500
From: Konstantin Gurevich <KGurevich@library.rochester.edu>
Subject: Using 856 in MARC Holdings records
Greetings from one of the early Voyager sites (1996):
- We put them in both bib and holdings records. The hot link is displayed
in the OPAC from the holdings record, but the URL icon is created by 856
$u in the bib record. We started putting URLs in MFHDs when we began
making single records but kept them in the bib records just in case. A
recently discovered added benefit is that the 856s in bib records can be
used to pull lists of titles from the same aggregator/vendor using builder
searches, e.g. "acm" in URL, or "sciencedirect" in URL, etc.
- Unfortunately, we move them manually (cut & paste). I would love to hear
of a better solution, should there be one.
- The number of holdings records depends upon the situation at hand (we
are all over the place in terms of single vs multiple records). Links to
different sites (aggregators, vendors, publishers, etc.) are put in
different MFHDs, especially if coverage and/or restrictions are different.
Links to different pages of the same site (e.g. for e-journals: one URL
for current issues, another - and a very different one - for the archive)
are put on the same MFHD, although this is an extremely rare situation,
and I cannot think of examples right now. The range of years can be put in
$z. If a link is not to the full-text version, we usually put it on the
same MFHD as the print.
Here's our Voyager link: http://groucho.lib.rochester.edu/
Konstantin Gurevich
Head, Serials Cataloging
Rush Rhees Library
University of Rochester
Rochester, NY 14627-0055
Phone (585) 275-9452
E-mail: kgurevich@library.rochester.edu
(3)-------------------
Date: Mon, 09 Dec 2002 16:31:22 -0500
From: Frieda Rosenberg <friedat@email.unc.edu>
Subject: Re: Using 856 in MARC Holdings records
"Classic" DRA automatically copies a URL (one or several) found in the bib
record into any holdings record you want to create thereafter. Cutting
and pasting can organize them into separate records for specific
electronic resources, if desired. However, as of yet they neither display
nor hotlink from the holdings record; DRA, meanwhile, has been purchased
by another company and its future is uncertain.
Frieda (UNC_Chapel Hill)
--
Frieda Rosenberg
Serials Cataloging
#3914 Davis Library
UNC-Chapel Hill
Tel. 919 962-2050
FAX. 919 962-4450
friedat@email.unc.edu
(4)-------------------
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 16:27:08 +1100
From: Guy Aron <guy.aron@rmit.edu.au>
Subject: 856 in MARC holdings records
At RMIT we also use the single record approach. My impression is that
this, although easier for the user (a good reason, in my opinion), makes
it harder to adopt an automated approach to adding holdings for additional
formats. This becomes particularly difficult when the same periodical
title is available in more than one database. Nearby academic libraries,
eg Melbourne University, have gone the multiple record route, I suspect
because it is easier.
We are still using Geac Advance (although plans are afoot for a new ILMS)
and for technical reasons this means we have to add URLs in the location
part of the holdings data. This is automated to the extent that we use
templates for the major databases or aggregator services. But it is all
pretty labor-intensive. So I will be interested to see if any other
single-record libraries have found some slick ways of adding links.
We actually strip off 856s from bibliographic records we import into our
local system, as this gives misleading information in the OPAC (i.e.
suggests we have access to databases we don't subscribe to). I think
Kinetica (the Australian OCLC) discourages libraries from putting
electronic information into the bib record for this reason.
Look forward to the summary! (Do you think "Single record theory" would
make a good name for a band?)
Regards
Guy Aron
Deputy Team Leader, Business & Social Sciences
Library Resources & Access Unit
RMIT University Library
Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology
GPO Box 2476V
Melbourne, Victoria 3001
AUSTRALIA
phone 03 9925244
fax 03 9925 9050
email guy.aron@rmit.edu.au
(5)-------------------
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 08:29:56 -0500
From: Maggie Rioux <mrioux@whoi.edu>
Subject: re: 856 in MARC Holdings records
We're putting the 856 in both our holdings and bib records. It's in
the bib record for searching & thumbnail generation purposes and in the
MFHD for display purposes.
By putting the 856 info in the bib record, you can search on it using
keyword searching. We also created a specific keyword index for the 856
field. If the 856 is only in the MFHD it's not searchable. It's a nice
trick to be able to search for http in your 856 fields and turn up all
e-journals. Also, the thumbnail generator cgi that makes those cute
little thumbnails appear in your OPAC title hit list uses the bib record
for reference.
However - we decided to put the 856 in the MFHD for display purposes.
We're using the "one record" approach for the various formats and that
way the hotlink is in the holding record to which it's relevant. Just
seems more logical.
And no, we don't have any handy automagic way to get the field from
one record to another except cut and paste, but voyager cut and paste of
whole fields is pretty fast and easy.
I don't think we have multiple URLs in one record, but if we had, say,
current issues from ScienceDirect and old ones from JSTOR, we'd probably
do 2 MFHDs - one for each run and location.
Hope that helps. Have a good holiday,
Maggie
****************************************************************
* Maggie Rioux | Email: mrioux@whoi.edu *
* Information Systems Librarian | Voice: 508/289-2538 *
* MBL/WHOI Library | Fax: 508/457-2156 *
* Woods Hole Oceanographic Inst. | Foot: Clark Lab, Room 135 *
* Woods Hole, MA 02543 | Quissett Campus, WHOI*
****************************************************************
"Mere fabrication should never ruin a good story." Jack Matthews
(6)-------------------
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 10:55:29 -0500
From: Marcia Kingsley <marcia.kingsley@wmich.edu>
Subject: 856's in holdings records
I'll be interested to learn what you hear. We also have
Voyager and use single/individual bib records for each format of a
journal. At first the possibility of using the 856 in the MFHD
appealed to me (as an acq and serials person!); it sounded like an
improvement on continuing to use the bib record. Especially since
the bib record sometimes had two or three url's for different
vendors of an e-journal, the MFHD 856's seemed more helpful in
keeping our access info. for different versions/vendors straight and
sort of tidy.
But thinking about how the opac would display, I decided not to
urge the catalogers to change to MFHD 856's. I figure all the patron
wants to see is the title and a url that displays high up in the
Voyager record so he can immediately click. We didn't want to expect
the patron to scroll down to holdings displays.
(We knew from anecdotal evidence that patrons and librarians
weren't scrolling down to the holdings display to look at volume
coverage. I suppose using the MFHD for 856 as well as holdings would
be one way of forcing patrons to look there; then maybe we wouldn't
have so many cases of the patron being surprised when he gets to the
online journal and finds it only has a few years of coverage.)
Sincerely, Marcie
Marcie Kingsley
Head, Library Acquisitions and Serial Resources
Western Michigan University
Kalamazoo, MI 49008
kingsley@wmich.edu
269 387-5147 (Fax: -5193)
(7)-------------------
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 11:37:39 -0500
From: "Creech, Anna" <Anna.Creech@EKU.EDU>
Subject: RE: Using 856 in MARC Holdings records
Hello!
We are also a Voyager site, and over the past year, I have been adding
URLs to both bibliographic and holdings records. We made the decision
early on to try to maintain the single record approach, so the only time I
needed a record for the electronic journal was for those titles that we do
not also have a print subscription. Our Reference Team discussed options
for where to put the URL, and we decided on putting it in both the
bibliographic and holdings records because it needs to be in the bib
record from a cataloging point of view but might be too confusing to
patrons to just have it in the bib record. There is no way that I know of
to have it pull that information to the bib record automatically, so I
manually cut and pasted all of them. On the rare occasions when it was
necessary to include two URLs for one title, I treated them like copies
and put both on the same MFHD. You can make as many 856 fields in either
the bib or the holdings records as are needed.
I hope that answers all of your questions! If you want to see our
catalog, you can find it at http://equest.eku.edu/.
Anna Creech, MLS
Serials/Database Cataloger
Eastern Kentucky University
(859) 622-3062
"It's one thing to be in a bookstore. But to see your book in a library, to me that really means something."
--David Sedaris
(8)------------------
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 15:24:06 -0500
From: Teresa Weisser <Teresa.Weisser@millersville.edu>
Subject: RE: Using 856 in MARC Holdings records
Our Periodicals unit has been putting URLs into the MARC holdings records
for our periodicals for about two years now. We're in basically the same
situation as you are: a Voyager library currently using a single record
approach for cataloging e-journals. Since we receive some of our
electronic periodicals through multiple vendors, our periodicals staff
decided that moving the URL to the holdings record made for clearer
displays than leaving it in the bib. As far as I know, they haven't
developed an automated means of moving the URLs. They've been working on
the records anyway and have, I think, been copying and pasting URLs into
the MFHDs. If we have multiple URLs, multiple MFHDs are created so that
the holdings information is associated with the correct URL.
At this point, Periodicals is the only unit which has switched to placing
URLs in MFHDs and only in MFHDs. For web resources which aren't
periodicals (e.g. web sites), I've moved the URL into the MFHD but also
left it on the bib. My reason for doing this is that the URLs on the bib.
are searchable through Voyager keyword searches while the MFHDs aren't.
That way, if I should need to change a large number of very similar URLs,
I can pull them up by doing one or a small number of searches. Our
Government Documents unit, at this point, has URLs in the bib. records
only. In that case, we purchase our bib. records for documents from
Marcive and don't have any easy means of moving the URL to the MFHD. I
suspect that we could move the URL using Voyager's prebulk program when we
import new Marcive records, but we're just beginning to experiment with
prebulk and aren't quite ready to try it on a live file yet. Hope this
helps!
Teresa A. Weisser
Electronic Records/Assistant Systems Librarian
Ganser Library
Millersville University of Pennsylvania
Millersville, PA 17551
(717)872-3604
teresa.weisser@millersville.edu
(9)-------------------
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 12:39:58 -0500
From: Steve Murden <stevemurden@mindspring.com>
Subject: I'm interested
If you get private responses, I'd be interested in what
you hear. I'm getting ready to do this at my job.
Thanks.
steve
----- Original message -----
Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2002 15:34:10 -0500
To: "SERIALST: Serials in Libraries Discussion Forum"
From: Birdie MacLennan <bmaclenn@ZOO.UVM.EDU>
Subject: Using 856 in MARC Holdings records
Hi All -
We are in the process of re-evaluating our OPAC displays for e-journals
and are wondering how many places out there are putting URLs into MARC
holdings records, as opposed to MARC bibliographic records. Or are some
places putting the URL in BOTH the bibliographic and holdings records?
If you are adding URLs to holdings records, have you developed an
automated solution for moving URLs from bibliographic to holdings records?
Or are you manually copying and pasting, or otherwise handkeying them into
an 856 in the holdings record?
If you are using the MARC holdings record for input and display of URLs
for electronic journals, we would be interested in hearing from you. We
are a Voyager site -- currently using a single-record approach for
cataloging e-journals. Some of our records contain holdings for multiple
print locations (with holdings) ... so if you are using MARC holdings to
display URLs and if you have multiple URLs, are you using more than one
MARC holdings record?
If you want to respond to me directly, I'll summarize for the list ... or
you can respond directly to the list so curious readers can be instantly
informed!
Thanks in advance for any help. - Birdie
Birdie MacLennan
Library Associate Professor
Coordinator, Serials & Cataloging
University of Vermont
bmaclenn@zoo.uvm.edu
