<HTML><FONT FACE=arial,helvetica><FONT SIZE=2 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0">Then Koha should be changed to make things compliant <BR>
one should not expect people to have to move data around if ... that is where the data would be normally found.<BR>
<BR>
Ed Sharpe<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE style="BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px"><BR>
<BR>
Fields 090 and 092 are very often used by institution to store their locally<BR>
created LC class number and Dewey class number. It is very common to see<BR>
that information there. It was not a safe field.<BR>
<BR>
Picking those fields to store other information was not the best choice.<BR>
Something in the 9XX would have been better.<BR>
<BR>
However, if someone has info in 090, they could move it to 050, with a<BR>
second indicator of 4. 050 can repeat, so the record could have an 050 with<BR>
a second indicator of 0 for LC and another with a second indicator of 4 for<BR>
the locally created number.<BR>
<BR>
MarcEdit or MARC::pm may be able to make the change.<BR>
<BR>
Field 001 is used for the bibliographic record number. It can be different<BR>
for each institution. An institution receiving a record from OCLC, for<BR>
example, will move the current record number to 035 and then place their<BR>
number in 001 and their institutional code in 003.<BR>
<BR>
Each bibliographic record can have several items attached to that one<BR>
record. For instance, an encyclopedia will only have the one record for the<BR>
work but each volume must have their individual barcodes, and other copy<BR>
information recorded.<BR>
<BR>
The copy and work information should be kept separate and not confused.<BR>
<BR>
Sincerely,<BR>
David Bigwood<BR>
bigwood@lpi.usra.edu<BR>
Lunar &Planetary Institute<BR>
Cataloging news: http://www.catalogablog.blogspot.com<BR>
</BLOCKQUOTE><BR>
<BR>
</FONT></HTML>