NCIP User Question - biblionum in 001 vs 999c
Hi all, The HELM libraries of Massachusetts are new to Koha as of June, 2018. We are currently working to bring up our instance in the statewide lending system. The NCIP message from the statewide lending system is using the 001 for the biblio number but koha stores this value in the 999c The question are: 1. Has anyone developed a connector that looks in the 001? 2. Has anyone developed a system to copy the 999c value into the 001? 3. Is there another way to handle this? -- Kelly Drake HELM Project Manager kelly@flo.org | Conference calls: https://zoom.us/j/9606207016
Hi, Kelly-- Our records in Koha actually have different values in the 001 field based on the age of the record. When I first thought about this, I pretty much clutched my pearls and took to my fainting couch, thinking things like, "But the 001 should be our consistent, primary database key! Oh my stars and garters!!!" Then after applying a cool cloth to my forehead I got to thinking about how we used the 001 and what data was there: based on the age of the record, it's either an old catalog record number (which I want to keep in the record) or the OCLC number (which I definitely want to keep in the record). How do I use it? Well, to just store those numbers, and if I want to overlay the existing Koha record with a record that I'm exporting from the OCLC Connexion Client, I include a 999 $c with the Koha record number in that field in the OCLC record. I'm currently having some trouble with links into our catalog from our holdings in WorldCat.org, but that doesn't seem related--we're trying to use ISBNs or title data for that. So perhaps it might be helpful to ask how you would be using the 001 field and the 999 $c field, and how it's used among the other libraries. I don't have a lot of experience with using MarcEdit and such since ByWater supports our Koha catalog & I happily rely on them for things like this, but I think it would be entirely possible to export your records to MarcEdit, copy record numbers that you're not using to another field (e.g., 035) and copy the Koha biblionumbers to the 001, then reimport/replace the records. But that sounds kind of drastic to me. I also clutch my pearls at the thought of data being duplicated in a record, e.g., in the 999 $c as well as the 001, but I can't think of any harm that it would do in *my* setting--perhaps others could? Your system would also need some sort of configuring for ongoing cataloging, to see that the biblionumber gets copied into the 001. But if it were me, I'd think long and hard about if this is really necessary. For us, it's been absolutely fine to have the Koha biblionumbers in the 999 $c and an assortment of types of numbers in the 001--I've gotten up off my fainting couch, adjusted my pearls, and realized that it works!:) I hope that others will chime in, because I would be very interested to know about other options and possible consequences that might face us in the future since we do have such a variety of numbers in our 001 fields. I hope this helps! Best, h2 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Heather Hernandez Technical Services Librarian San Francisco Maritime National Historical Park Research Center 2 Marina Blvd., Bldg. E, 3rd floor, San Francisco, CA 94123-1284 415-561-7032, heather_hernandez@nps.gov Library catalog: http://keys.bywatersolutions.com/
I'm not sure where this thread is going, but from one "maritime" library to another, the 001 is defined at <http://www.loc.gov/marc/bibliographic/bdleader.html> and shouldn't have anything to do with biblio numbers (which are stored in 999$c as far as Koha is concerned and are used relationally with numerous other data entries.) As to OCLC, our cataloguers see entries at 035$a in the format "(OCoLC)34125755" (again, see <http://www.loc.gov/marc/bibliographic/bd035.html> which specifically mentions OCLC.) Our budget does not cover the cost of OCLC services, so I am blissfully ignorant of how to use their numbers -- maybe they, rather than Koha, are better equipped to answer your query? Best -- Paul On 2018-07-26 12:01 PM, Heather Hernandez wrote:
Hi, Kelly--
Our records in Koha actually have different values in the 001 field based on the age of the record. When I first thought about this, I pretty much clutched my pearls and took to my fainting couch, thinking things like, "But the 001 should be our consistent, primary database key! Oh my stars and garters!!!"
Then after applying a cool cloth to my forehead I got to thinking about how we used the 001 and what data was there: based on the age of the record, it's either an old catalog record number (which I want to keep in the record) or the OCLC number (which I definitely want to keep in the record). How do I use it? Well, to just store those numbers, and if I want to overlay the existing Koha record with a record that I'm exporting from the OCLC Connexion Client, I include a 999 $c with the Koha record number in that field in the OCLC record. I'm currently having some trouble with links into our catalog from our holdings in WorldCat.org, but that doesn't seem related--we're trying to use ISBNs or title data for that.
So perhaps it might be helpful to ask how you would be using the 001 field and the 999 $c field, and how it's used among the other libraries. I don't have a lot of experience with using MarcEdit and such since ByWater supports our Koha catalog & I happily rely on them for things like this, but I think it would be entirely possible to export your records to MarcEdit, copy record numbers that you're not using to another field (e.g., 035) and copy the Koha biblionumbers to the 001, then reimport/replace the records. But that sounds kind of drastic to me. I also clutch my pearls at the thought of data being duplicated in a record, e.g., in the 999 $c as well as the 001, but I can't think of any harm that it would do in *my* setting--perhaps others could? Your system would also need some sort of configuring for ongoing cataloging, to see that the biblionumber gets copied into the 001.
But if it were me, I'd think long and hard about if this is really necessary. For us, it's been absolutely fine to have the Koha biblionumbers in the 999 $c and an assortment of types of numbers in the 001--I've gotten up off my fainting couch, adjusted my pearls, and realized that it works!:) I hope that others will chime in, because I would be very interested to know about other options and possible consequences that might face us in the future since we do have such a variety of numbers in our 001 fields.
I hope this helps! Best, h2 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Heather Hernandez Technical Services Librarian San Francisco Maritime National Historical Park Research Center 2 Marina Blvd., Bldg. E, 3rd floor, San Francisco, CA 94123-1284 415-561-7032, heather_hernandez@nps.gov Library catalog: http://keys.bywatersolutions.com/ _______________________________________________ Koha mailing list http://koha-community.org Koha@lists.katipo.co.nz https://lists.katipo.co.nz/mailman/listinfo/koha
Actually, that's the leader. The 001 field is documented here: http://www.loc.gov/marc/bibliographic/bd001.html Paul. On Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 04:06:50PM -0400, Paul A wrote:
I'm not sure where this thread is going, but from one "maritime" library to another, the 001 is defined at <http://www.loc.gov/marc/bibliographic/bdleader.html> and shouldn't have anything to do with biblio numbers (which are stored in 999$c as far as Koha is concerned and are used relationally with numerous other data entries.)
As to OCLC, our cataloguers see entries at 035$a in the format "(OCoLC)34125755" (again, see <http://www.loc.gov/marc/bibliographic/bd035.html> which specifically mentions OCLC.) Our budget does not cover the cost of OCLC services, so I am blissfully ignorant of how to use their numbers -- maybe they, rather than Koha, are better equipped to answer your query?
Best -- Paul
On 2018-07-26 12:01 PM, Heather Hernandez wrote:
Hi, Kelly--
Our records in Koha actually have different values in the 001 field based on the age of the record. When I first thought about this, I pretty much clutched my pearls and took to my fainting couch, thinking things like, "But the 001 should be our consistent, primary database key! Oh my stars and garters!!!"
Then after applying a cool cloth to my forehead I got to thinking about how we used the 001 and what data was there: based on the age of the record, it's either an old catalog record number (which I want to keep in the record) or the OCLC number (which I definitely want to keep in the record). How do I use it? Well, to just store those numbers, and if I want to overlay the existing Koha record with a record that I'm exporting from the OCLC Connexion Client, I include a 999 $c with the Koha record number in that field in the OCLC record. I'm currently having some trouble with links into our catalog from our holdings in WorldCat.org, but that doesn't seem related--we're trying to use ISBNs or title data for that.
So perhaps it might be helpful to ask how you would be using the 001 field and the 999 $c field, and how it's used among the other libraries. I don't have a lot of experience with using MarcEdit and such since ByWater supports our Koha catalog & I happily rely on them for things like this, but I think it would be entirely possible to export your records to MarcEdit, copy record numbers that you're not using to another field (e.g., 035) and copy the Koha biblionumbers to the 001, then reimport/replace the records. But that sounds kind of drastic to me. I also clutch my pearls at the thought of data being duplicated in a record, e.g., in the 999 $c as well as the 001, but I can't think of any harm that it would do in *my* setting--perhaps others could? Your system would also need some sort of configuring for ongoing cataloging, to see that the biblionumber gets copied into the 001.
But if it were me, I'd think long and hard about if this is really necessary. For us, it's been absolutely fine to have the Koha biblionumbers in the 999 $c and an assortment of types of numbers in the 001--I've gotten up off my fainting couch, adjusted my pearls, and realized that it works!:) I hope that others will chime in, because I would be very interested to know about other options and possible consequences that might face us in the future since we do have such a variety of numbers in our 001 fields.
I hope this helps! Best, h2 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Heather Hernandez Technical Services Librarian San Francisco Maritime National Historical Park Research Center 2 Marina Blvd., Bldg. E, 3rd floor, San Francisco, CA 94123-1284 415-561-7032, heather_hernandez@nps.gov Library catalog: http://keys.bywatersolutions.com/ _______________________________________________ Koha mailing list http://koha-community.org Koha@lists.katipo.co.nz https://lists.katipo.co.nz/mailman/listinfo/koha
_______________________________________________ Koha mailing list http://koha-community.org Koha@lists.katipo.co.nz https://lists.katipo.co.nz/mailman/listinfo/koha
-- Paul Hoffman <paul@flo.org> Software Manager Fenway Libraries Online c/o Wentworth Institute of Technology 550 Huntington Ave. Boston, MA 02115 (617) 442-2384 (FLO main number)
Hi Kelly and Heather! In many other ILS systems the 001 was/is indeed a field that contained a unique value (control number). I still work with data from time to time that has a unique id in the 001. Heather is right that in Koha the unique id is stored in the 999$c, so you can use the 001 field for whatever you like. Some sites put the oclc number in the 001, others just leave it blank, or just take what comes when cataloging via z3950 (clutch your pearls on that. :D ) Kelly, I have set up some sites to automatically copy the biblionumber to the 001 tag. Yes, it duplicates the data from the 999c to the 001, but it is done programmatically at night so no upkeep would be needed by cataloging staff. As long as all your libraries are okay with this configuration and don't plan to use the 001 for anything else, let us know at ByWater and we can set this up for you. joy On Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 10:01 AM, Heather Hernandez < heather_hernandez@nps.gov> wrote:
Hi, Kelly--
Our records in Koha actually have different values in the 001 field based on the age of the record. When I first thought about this, I pretty much clutched my pearls and took to my fainting couch, thinking things like, "But the 001 should be our consistent, primary database key! Oh my stars and garters!!!"
Then after applying a cool cloth to my forehead I got to thinking about how we used the 001 and what data was there: based on the age of the record, it's either an old catalog record number (which I want to keep in the record) or the OCLC number (which I definitely want to keep in the record). How do I use it? Well, to just store those numbers, and if I want to overlay the existing Koha record with a record that I'm exporting from the OCLC Connexion Client, I include a 999 $c with the Koha record number in that field in the OCLC record. I'm currently having some trouble with links into our catalog from our holdings in WorldCat.org, but that doesn't seem related--we're trying to use ISBNs or title data for that.
So perhaps it might be helpful to ask how you would be using the 001 field and the 999 $c field, and how it's used among the other libraries. I don't have a lot of experience with using MarcEdit and such since ByWater supports our Koha catalog & I happily rely on them for things like this, but I think it would be entirely possible to export your records to MarcEdit, copy record numbers that you're not using to another field (e.g., 035) and copy the Koha biblionumbers to the 001, then reimport/replace the records. But that sounds kind of drastic to me. I also clutch my pearls at the thought of data being duplicated in a record, e.g., in the 999 $c as well as the 001, but I can't think of any harm that it would do in *my* setting--perhaps others could? Your system would also need some sort of configuring for ongoing cataloging, to see that the biblionumber gets copied into the 001.
But if it were me, I'd think long and hard about if this is really necessary. For us, it's been absolutely fine to have the Koha biblionumbers in the 999 $c and an assortment of types of numbers in the 001--I've gotten up off my fainting couch, adjusted my pearls, and realized that it works!:) I hope that others will chime in, because I would be very interested to know about other options and possible consequences that might face us in the future since we do have such a variety of numbers in our 001 fields.
I hope this helps! Best, h2 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Heather Hernandez Technical Services Librarian San Francisco Maritime National Historical Park Research Center 2 Marina Blvd., Bldg. E, 3rd floor, San Francisco, CA 94123-1284 415-561-7032, heather_hernandez@nps.gov Library catalog: http://keys.bywatersolutions.com/ _______________________________________________ Koha mailing list http://koha-community.org Koha@lists.katipo.co.nz https://lists.katipo.co.nz/mailman/listinfo/koha
-- Joy Nelson Vice President of Implementations ByWater Solutions <http://bywatersolutions.com> Support and Consulting for Open Source Software Phone/Fax (888)900-8944 What is Koha? <http://bywatersolutions.com/what-is-koha/>
Hi Everyone! Thank you for all the input. Joy - we'll be talking! Heather - I do hope your pearls have weathered this storm Heather and Paul A - Does an ex-maritime librarian count? I used to work in the library at Mystic Seaport! Kelly On Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 1:17 PM, Joy Nelson <joy@bywatersolutions.com> wrote:
Hi Kelly and Heather! In many other ILS systems the 001 was/is indeed a field that contained a unique value (control number). I still work with data from time to time that has a unique id in the 001. Heather is right that in Koha the unique id is stored in the 999$c, so you can use the 001 field for whatever you like. Some sites put the oclc number in the 001, others just leave it blank, or just take what comes when cataloging via z3950 (clutch your pearls on that. :D )
Kelly, I have set up some sites to automatically copy the biblionumber to the 001 tag. Yes, it duplicates the data from the 999c to the 001, but it is done programmatically at night so no upkeep would be needed by cataloging staff. As long as all your libraries are okay with this configuration and don't plan to use the 001 for anything else, let us know at ByWater and we can set this up for you.
joy
On Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 10:01 AM, Heather Hernandez < heather_hernandez@nps.gov> wrote:
Hi, Kelly--
Our records in Koha actually have different values in the 001 field based on the age of the record. When I first thought about this, I pretty much clutched my pearls and took to my fainting couch, thinking things like, "But the 001 should be our consistent, primary database key! Oh my stars and garters!!!"
Then after applying a cool cloth to my forehead I got to thinking about how we used the 001 and what data was there: based on the age of the record, it's either an old catalog record number (which I want to keep in the record) or the OCLC number (which I definitely want to keep in the record). How do I use it? Well, to just store those numbers, and if I want to overlay the existing Koha record with a record that I'm exporting from the OCLC Connexion Client, I include a 999 $c with the Koha record number in that field in the OCLC record. I'm currently having some trouble with links into our catalog from our holdings in WorldCat.org, but that doesn't seem related--we're trying to use ISBNs or title data for that.
So perhaps it might be helpful to ask how you would be using the 001 field and the 999 $c field, and how it's used among the other libraries. I don't have a lot of experience with using MarcEdit and such since ByWater supports our Koha catalog & I happily rely on them for things like this, but I think it would be entirely possible to export your records to MarcEdit, copy record numbers that you're not using to another field (e.g., 035) and copy the Koha biblionumbers to the 001, then reimport/replace the records. But that sounds kind of drastic to me. I also clutch my pearls at the thought of data being duplicated in a record, e.g., in the 999 $c as well as the 001, but I can't think of any harm that it would do in *my* setting--perhaps others could? Your system would also need some sort of configuring for ongoing cataloging, to see that the biblionumber gets copied into the 001.
But if it were me, I'd think long and hard about if this is really necessary. For us, it's been absolutely fine to have the Koha biblionumbers in the 999 $c and an assortment of types of numbers in the 001--I've gotten up off my fainting couch, adjusted my pearls, and realized that it works!:) I hope that others will chime in, because I would be very interested to know about other options and possible consequences that might face us in the future since we do have such a variety of numbers in our 001 fields.
I hope this helps! Best, h2 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Heather Hernandez Technical Services Librarian San Francisco Maritime National Historical Park Research Center 2 Marina Blvd., Bldg. E, 3rd floor <https://maps.google.com/?q=2+Marina+Blvd.,+Bldg.+E,+3rd+floor&entry=gmail&source=g>, San Francisco, CA 94123-1284 415-561-7032, heather_hernandez@nps.gov Library catalog: http://keys.bywatersolutions.com/ _______________________________________________ Koha mailing list http://koha-community.org Koha@lists.katipo.co.nz https://lists.katipo.co.nz/mailman/listinfo/koha
-- Joy Nelson Vice President of Implementations
ByWater Solutions <http://bywatersolutions.com> Support and Consulting for Open Source Software Phone/Fax (888)900-8944 What is Koha? <http://bywatersolutions.com/what-is-koha/>
-- Kelly Drake HELM Project Manager kelly@flo.org | Conference calls: https://zoom.us/j/9606207016
Hi, Kelly!! I *thought* your name was familiar!! How nice to be in touch!! Once a maritime library worker, always a maritime library worker?? (There's a joke in there about salt, but I need more coffee to make it!) Glad you're in touch with Joy--she has simply *mad* MARC record skillz!! Luckily, I have remarkably resilient pearls!:):) Ever best to all, h2 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Heather Hernandez Technical Services Librarian San Francisco Maritime National Historical Park Research Center 2 Marina Blvd., Bldg. E, 3rd floor, San Francisco, CA 94123-1284 415-561-7032, heather_hernandez@nps.gov Library catalog: http://keys.bywatersolutions.com/
I'm pretty sure that I've seen Heather up-shift, down-shift and double-clutch her pearls, which I suspect individually milled from high carbon steel and inspected daily with a micrometer for wear. ;-) On Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 5:38 PM, Heather Hernandez < heather_hernandez@nps.gov> wrote:
Hi, Kelly!!
I *thought* your name was familiar!! How nice to be in touch!! Once a maritime library worker, always a maritime library worker?? (There's a joke in there about salt, but I need more coffee to make it!)
Glad you're in touch with Joy--she has simply *mad* MARC record skillz!!
Luckily, I have remarkably resilient pearls!:):)
Ever best to all, h2 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Heather Hernandez Technical Services Librarian San Francisco Maritime National Historical Park Research Center 2 Marina Blvd., Bldg. E, 3rd floor, San Francisco, CA 94123-1284 415-561-7032, heather_hernandez@nps.gov Library catalog: http://keys.bywatersolutions.com/ _______________________________________________ Koha mailing list http://koha-community.org Koha@lists.katipo.co.nz https://lists.katipo.co.nz/mailman/listinfo/koha
Oh, man, this message cracked me up SO much, Barton! I'm dearly hoping that there will be a session at KohaCon on Open Source, Community Supported Pearl Clutching: Tips, Techniques, and Tackling Your Own Restringing. (Yes--I'm a fan of the British _Top Gear_ and NPR's CarTalk!!) Best to all, h2 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Heather Hernandez Technical Services Librarian San Francisco Maritime National Historical Park Research Center 2 Marina Blvd., Bldg. E, 3rd floor, San Francisco, CA 94123-1284 415-561-7032, heather_hernandez@nps.gov Library catalog: http://keys.bywatersolutions.co <http://keys.bywatersolutions.com/> m
On 2018-07-26 05:34 PM, Kelly Drake wrote: [snip]
Heather and Paul A - Does an ex-maritime librarian count? I used to work in the library at Mystic Seaport!
Yup... Paul O'P is an old friend of mine. Best -- Paul (another one.)
Kelly
On Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 1:17 PM, Joy Nelson <joy@bywatersolutions.com> wrote:
Hi Kelly and Heather! In many other ILS systems the 001 was/is indeed a field that contained a unique value (control number). I still work with data from time to time that has a unique id in the 001. Heather is right that in Koha the unique id is stored in the 999$c, so you can use the 001 field for whatever you like. Some sites put the oclc number in the 001, others just leave it blank, or just take what comes when cataloging via z3950 (clutch your pearls on that. :D )
Kelly, I have set up some sites to automatically copy the biblionumber to the 001 tag. Yes, it duplicates the data from the 999c to the 001, but it is done programmatically at night so no upkeep would be needed by cataloging staff. As long as all your libraries are okay with this configuration and don't plan to use the 001 for anything else, let us know at ByWater and we can set this up for you.
joy
On Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 10:01 AM, Heather Hernandez < heather_hernandez@nps.gov> wrote:
Hi, Kelly--
Our records in Koha actually have different values in the 001 field based on the age of the record. When I first thought about this, I pretty much clutched my pearls and took to my fainting couch, thinking things like, "But the 001 should be our consistent, primary database key! Oh my stars and garters!!!"
Then after applying a cool cloth to my forehead I got to thinking about how we used the 001 and what data was there: based on the age of the record, it's either an old catalog record number (which I want to keep in the record) or the OCLC number (which I definitely want to keep in the record). How do I use it? Well, to just store those numbers, and if I want to overlay the existing Koha record with a record that I'm exporting from the OCLC Connexion Client, I include a 999 $c with the Koha record number in that field in the OCLC record. I'm currently having some trouble with links into our catalog from our holdings in WorldCat.org, but that doesn't seem related--we're trying to use ISBNs or title data for that.
So perhaps it might be helpful to ask how you would be using the 001 field and the 999 $c field, and how it's used among the other libraries. I don't have a lot of experience with using MarcEdit and such since ByWater supports our Koha catalog & I happily rely on them for things like this, but I think it would be entirely possible to export your records to MarcEdit, copy record numbers that you're not using to another field (e.g., 035) and copy the Koha biblionumbers to the 001, then reimport/replace the records. But that sounds kind of drastic to me. I also clutch my pearls at the thought of data being duplicated in a record, e.g., in the 999 $c as well as the 001, but I can't think of any harm that it would do in *my* setting--perhaps others could? Your system would also need some sort of configuring for ongoing cataloging, to see that the biblionumber gets copied into the 001.
But if it were me, I'd think long and hard about if this is really necessary. For us, it's been absolutely fine to have the Koha biblionumbers in the 999 $c and an assortment of types of numbers in the 001--I've gotten up off my fainting couch, adjusted my pearls, and realized that it works!:) I hope that others will chime in, because I would be very interested to know about other options and possible consequences that might face us in the future since we do have such a variety of numbers in our 001 fields.
I hope this helps! Best, h2 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Heather Hernandez Technical Services Librarian San Francisco Maritime National Historical Park Research Center 2 Marina Blvd., Bldg. E, 3rd floor <https://maps.google.com/?q=2+Marina+Blvd.,+Bldg.+E,+3rd+floor&entry=gmail&source=g>, San Francisco, CA 94123-1284 415-561-7032, heather_hernandez@nps.gov Library catalog: http://keys.bywatersolutions.com/ _______________________________________________ Koha mailing list http://koha-community.org Koha@lists.katipo.co.nz https://lists.katipo.co.nz/mailman/listinfo/koha
-- Joy Nelson Vice President of Implementations
ByWater Solutions <http://bywatersolutions.com> Support and Consulting for Open Source Software Phone/Fax (888)900-8944 What is Koha? <http://bywatersolutions.com/what-is-koha/>
What a small world it is, Paul!! And such a friendly one! Best, h2 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Heather Hernandez Technical Services Librarian San Francisco Maritime National Historical Park Research Center 2 Marina Blvd., Bldg. E, 3rd floor, San Francisco, CA 94123-1284 415-561-7032, heather_hernandez@nps.gov Library catalog: http://keys.bywatersolutions.com/
participants (6)
-
Barton Chittenden -
Heather Hernandez -
Joy Nelson -
Kelly Drake -
Paul A -
Paul Hoffman