Colleagues, Just to stir up the conversational pot a little ... At the New York State Library, we were actively involved with the United States Newspaper Program and became enamored with the idea of adding all holdings to a "master" i.e. [in that case] print bibliographic record ... how easy it makes it for researchers to locate what they are after, with no guarantees about access, but that comes with the territory. These days (I've changed seats) the New York State Library actively collects many electronic NY State government documents, with often no way to verify if the item was/is in print ... it depends upon who you get on the phone any given day. And so, naturally, we catalog a lot of state titles as electronic resources. So already has been the case that a printed/published copy of a NY State government document has arrived that we've already cataloged as electronic. We hesitate to 'duplicate' description. In the same way that in the past we all agreed that microfilm is just a reformat of the print, we are seriously considering the concept that, these days, paper is just a reformat of the electronic. We rarely/never catalog a CD or internet edition of an item that we receive in paper, just adding those CD items to the paper collection and linking to the web, even knowing that other libraries will catalog those other formats ... they are welcome to. Similarly, we may in the future rarely/never catalog a paper item that we receive in electronic format first, even knowing that other libraries will catalog the paper ... they are welcome to. Yes, I know that our local holdings are different than those represented in the international database, but if I were asked (and that's a BIG IF), I'd support that we add paper holdings to electronic titles in OCLC. Regards, Bob Dowd Senior Librarian Documents Section New York State Library Cultural Education Center Empire State Plaza Albany, NY 12230 >>> myersm@OCLC.ORG 12/8/2006 9:26:02 AM >>> To clarify, OCLC recommends libraries use the appropriate bibliographic record for creating local holdings in WorldCat whenever possible. This allows OCLC's resource sharing system to accurately deflect requests based on format-level policies and it will allow your holdings to be accurately reflected if you choose to take advantage of other services like WorldCat Collection Analysis. However, if your library or group decides to build local holdings records for all formats on the print bibliographic record we recommend that you build a separate local holdings record for each format and code the 007 field in the Local Holdings record to match the format being described in the record. The display in FirstSearch will be more accurate if you follow this convention. The summary field should reflect the holdings for all formats recorded on the paper bibliographic record. The conversion of the Local Data Records from the old system was completed in February 2006. There are no plans to do any further conversions of the data. If there are holdings that are not displaying in the way you would like them to display you will need to manually fix those records or if possible take advantage of the Local Holdings Maintenance program to have your holding updated automatically based on a file from your local system. For more information about the Local Holdings Maintenance service you can go to http://www.oclc.org/batchprocessing/options/holdings/localdatarecords/de fault.htm. Myrtle Myers Product Manager, Holdings & Local Data OCLC -----Original Message----- From: Ian Woodward [mailto:iwoodward@MAIL.COLGATE.EDU] Sent: Monday, December 04, 2006 8:44 AM Subject: Re: Local Holdings for multiformat holdings Our institution also made use of Passport to display the sum of print and microtext holdings, indicating the microtext holdings in note fields in accordance with an approved format. With the transition to Connexion and MARC holdings format, the notes we had previously entered to indicate microtext holdings were deposited in the 852 or 866 fields according to variations in features of said text that are obscure to me. I was advised by instructors at Nylink that the public note subfield ($z) of the 852 field is now an appropriate location to report one's microtext holdings, but that the sum of print and microtext holdings should be reported in the Summary Field. However, they did say that microtext holdings as reported in the note fields in Passport did not make their way to the Summary Field in Connexion, and that no mass retrospective repair project should be undertaken by libraries as a fix was in production. One point that was left obscure to me, and that concerns the 007 field. They were very clear that the 007/00 should not be set to indicate "microform" unless the bibliographic record unless the 300 field indicated that the bibliographic record was constructed to describe microtext. However, the 007/00 can be set at "unspecified", and, that having been done, the 007/01 can be set at 'multiple physical formats'. Does anyone know under what circumstances these options are intended to be used? IW I. Woodward Serials Office Colgate University Libraries 201L McGregory Hall 13 Oak Drive Hamilton, N.Y. 13346 Ph.: 315-228-7306 Fax: 315-228-7029
