Hello, Fred! In our latest exchange, on 6 Dec 2019, at 12:42, you wrote: You probably know this already, possibly because I posted something similar

a few weeks ago, but MarcEdit has a Delimited Text Translator that makes converting from a spreadsheet to MARC absurdly easy. You can see a very short example in my "MarcEdit in three minutes" presentation at http://avengingchicken.online/misc/king_marcedit_in_three_minutes_with_notes... and get MarcEdit at https://marcedit.reeset.net/

Thank you, Fred. I'll look at your presentation in case you offer insights others do not. I do use MarcEdit for indicators, punctuation marks, and all kinds of things. It's easier in my particular case. I have watched other videos on YouTube and I've learned how to convert to MARC records from the Access DB through spreadsheets from the videos. The substantive questions are what information is to be ported over and in what format. My immediate problem is that no call numbers *per se* have been assigned, so I've had to make them up from four fields in order to keep the call numbers unique: the collection code, the Dewey number, an author code (which can serve as the Cutter number), and the library number all cobbled together right now. Easy enough, a little bit of concatenation does the trick. Take my venerable case, *A dictionary of Japanese and English idiomatic equivalents*. Collection code is GE for "General Shelves", Dewey code = 495.631, author code = WAE, and the acquisition number = 1986-1003. I concatenated everything together to make GE 495.631 WAE 1986-1003. I can put the collection code separate from the call number, of course, putting it in the shelving location field (952$c), and the call number will still be unique (or nearly so). But once I drop the library acquisition number, there are all kinds of collisions. On top of that, the acquisition number seems rather important to the library staff; and, as I wrote earlier, I'm too new to challenge them about it, especially if I can't provide a substitute or alternative. I'm trying to limit the collisions and provide for the staff's needs. After all, they too will have to work with the system. But do the staff still need the Access DB ID number? That's the substantive question in this matter. Probably not once we bring Koha alive, for the library acquisition number is probably enough. If they have to get information from the old Access DB, that ought to be enough, I would think. But I have to hear it from them, not just assert it myself and impose the assertion on them. I have worked with that type of manager before, and it brings about a deterioration in the morale and the working relationship between the manager and the staff. I want upper management and the staff to have confidence in me and KSATs; and for them to invest in the new system in order to make it work.* I know that's a tall, heavy order and a collectivist solution; but in my environment, it's ultimately the right one. So there are these questions and others that I'd like to get settled as soon as possible, certainly before we bring Koha online. It's harder to retroactively fix a catalog, any catalog. And it's worse when questions that could have been settled beforehand were not. The catalog can be fixed, mind you, but it's a lot more work both on the technical side and on the relational side. Thanks for your input, everyone. Keep it coming. Footnote * I know there are times when the manager has to assert timself and I may have to do so in some instances. But I don't think this is one of them. The establishment of a new ILS is too big for that. -- -- Charles. Charles Kelley, MLS PSC 704 Box 1029 APO AP 96338 Charles Kelley 1-5-2 Tsukimino #210 Yamato-shi, Kanagawa-ken, 〒242-0002 JAPAN 1-301-741-7122 [US cell] 011-81-80-4714-5490 [JPN cell] mnogojazyk@aol.com [h] cmkelleymls@gmail.com [p] linkedin.com/in/cmkelleymls <http://www.linkedin.com/in/cmkelleymls> Meeting Your Information Needs. Virtually.