5 messages, 122 lines:
------------------------
Date: Wed, 29 Jan 1992 15:58:24 EST
From: Susan Davis <UNLSDB@UBVM.BITNET>
Subject: RE: Creating Check-in Records
When this issue came up earlier on SERIALST, most of the responses indicated
a preference for the alphabetical division of work for the following reasons:
- fairness of workload
- identification of a "territory", that is, a responsibility, and therefore
control and pride in handling a particular section
- a chance for more in-depth knowledge of particular titles, than a
superficial knowledge of all titles
- questions/problems can be directed to the appropriate person
I wouldn't have it any other way in my section.
Susan Davis
Head, Periodicals/University at Buffalo
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 29 Jan 1992 16:32:00 EST
From: "Mario Rups, Brookings Institution Library" <MRUPS@BROOK.BITNET>
Subject: Re: Creating check-in records
In answer to Christine Christiansen's question, re. how to go about
creating online check-in records: alphabetically, or as titles received:
Definitely, the latter.
Reasons:
1) The written check-in records do not always tell the whole story, and
the title might even change frequency on you with the very first issue you
receive after setting up the online record. Having the latest issue in hand
and checking the frequency information is more practical in the long run.
2) Too many issues from further down the alphabet are going to start
backing up on you until you get to them -- and you'll find yourself making
exceptions for urgently needed ones continually. Better to handle things
not only as issues come in, but in order of priority.
3) I don't know what system you're using, but the DRA/ATLAS check-in
system assumes the date of the first issue is also the date you expect it
-- and if the January issue, for example, does not normally come until
April or May, you're in for a lot of "issue is late" warnings if/when you
run your claims program.
I had an alphabetized listing of our serial/periodical titles and used
it both to create a permanent record of how I set up the check-in record
(in case something drastic went wrong and I had to re-do it, and also for
ease in creating holdings records for back runs) and as a check-list. It
worked for me.
Mario Rups
Harold Glenn Moulton Library
Brookings Institution
Washington, DC
<MRUPS@BROOK.BITNET>
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 30 Jan 1992 09:05:51 EST
From: Carol Jones <SCILIBS@YALEVM.BITNET>
Subject: Re: Creating check-in records
The "as-received" option is definitely the preferred method, based upon my
experience. Why spend the time to alphabetize when the computer will search
for each title as input? Not having to alphabetize is one of the biggest
benefits of online check-in.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 30 Jan 1992 09:23:00 EDT
From: M_CREAMER@HVRFORD.BITNET
Subject: Creating check-in records
In answer to Christine Christiansen's question on how best to handle
creation of check-in records, we have recently automated our serials
procedures here at Haverford College and found that it is best to have
the latest issue of a periodical in hand when creating the record.
Time does not allow creation of records for every item received each
day, but the issues provide needed information such as publication
schedules, cover dates, enumeration, receipt dates, etc.
In addition to creating as many records as possible of those received
each day, we did a gradual alphabetical sweep of all titles.
Marilyn Creamer
Serials Department
Haverford College
Haverford, PA
m_creamer@acc.haverford.edu
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 30 Jan 1992 08:28:43 EST
From: Florence Hayes <FH3@CORNELLC.BITNET>
Subject: Creating check-in records
At Cornell's Central Technical Services we started out creating online
check-in records for just the new and recataloged serial titles. Also, for
the six sections of our Western Language Kardex, the check-in staff created
check-in records for ongoing titles as time permitted.
With our workload there was not much extra time for creating check-in records
and the OPAC users really wanted them; fortunately we were able to hire
two people to create check-in records full-time and to finish the
job. When all the Kardex titles had online records, we dismantled
the Kardex. The only problem with not doing it alphabetically was that we
could not give a concise answer as to what was now being checked in online.
We have East Asian and Southeast Asian Kardexes for titles still
checked in manually. And we have a small Kardex for records for
memberships, etc., and a very few complex titles inappropriate for
online check-in.
We continue to do a rough alphabetical sort according to the original six
sections of the Kardex, since check-in staff are familiar with the
titles in their own section and are better able to resolve problems.
Not counting the new and recataloged titles, we converted about 30,000
titles from manual to online check-in.
Florence Hayes
Cornell University Library
fh3@cornellc.bitnet
