Margaret:
   I don't know if this will help or not:
   We are also using the summary level (level 3) to record our holdings.
We use a note to include the entire holdings and only have the most recent
issues set up for the system for check-in (basic issues 853/863 publication
patterns).  Since the system generates summary holdings from the check-in
boxes, we have turned off auto-generation of summary holdings and rely on
our notes field instead.  For example:

World almanac and book of facts
  Library holds:
    1923-1935, 1937-1959, 1961-1962, 1964-1966, 1968-1976, 19798-1980,
1982-1985, 1987-CURRENT YEAR

  Last rec'd: ed.126 / 1994        2/28/94

In the above example, we input the "library holds" note manually.  The only
system generated part that displays to the public is the "Last rec'd:"
statement.  Otherwise, we would not be able to check in 70 years' worth of
volumes of one title!  Not to mention the frequency changes and/or
numbering changes (if any).  If we relied on our summary holdings generated
from check-in it would display as:
  ed.125 / 1993 -
which would be misleading, implying that we only have issues from the first
issues checked in on our serials module.

  In summary:  depending on your system, it may not pay to do full
retrospective conversion of the entire check-in history of your serials
into the MARC format for holdings.  It is very labor intensive and may not
give you the results you want anyway.  You need to determine what will be
accomplished by just relying on summary holdings statements vs. checking in
every issue you have ever received of every title.

  I hope I understood your question correctly.

-- Mitch
  _^_                                                 _^_
( ___ )-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-( ___ )
 |   |     Mitch Turitz, Serials Librarian           |   |
 |   |     San Francisco State University Library    |   |
 |   |     Internet: turitz@sfsu.edu                 |   |
( ___ )-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-==-=-=-=-=-==-( ___ )
   V                                                   V
       Rule #1: Don't let the small stuff upset you.
       Rule #2: It's ALL small stuff.

At  9:50 AM 5/18/94 -0500, margaret wilson wrote:
>To those of you doing retrospective conversion of serials using the MARC
>holdings format:  our library is undertaking a very large retrospective
>conversion project. The tight deadline for completion will preclude an in-depth
>inventory of our holdings.  I had thought to record our holdings at the summary
>level (level 3), but then realized that we would still need to encode
>frequency values in the 853 $w.  We simply will not have time to determine
>frequency changes.  Unfortunately, the MARC values for the 853 $w do not
>include a code for "unverified."  Has anyone encountered this problem, and
>if so, how did you handle it?