Steven, The call number in 050 and 090 are for the manifestation of the work not the individual copy. 852, is for copy information, so that would not be a good choice to map the info to. Greg's records should have a field with copy info including a call number, location within his institution, cost, fund info and whatever his institution needs to attach to that copy. That is good for 852. 050 and 090 classification information is not copy related. The Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR) clear up some of the confusing aspects of our bib records. I never knew that LC used 090 for local call numbers, interesting bit of history. That explains why it is so common to see that field used. Sincerely, David Bigwood bigwood@lpi.usra.edu Lunar & Planetary Institute cataloging news: http://www.catalogablog.blogspot.com -----Original Message----- From: Steven F. Baljkas [mailto:baljkas@mb.sympatico.ca] Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2003 12:58 AM To: Greg Lambert/Amigos; koha@lists.katipo.co.nz Cc: baljkas@mb.sympatico.ca Subject: Re: [Koha] 090 Fields Tuesday, September 9, 2003 00:50 CDT Hi, Greg, It's not unusual for ILS to use 090 for the call number used by the library. This is, in part, because LC used it for both Local Call Number and Shelf Location at different times in the past (I actually have a print-off of an old-enough USMARC Concise Format that lists the 090 that way with the notation obsolete) and when it was cleared for system developpers use, many remembered its past and kept it going. Unless you've dumped your database in migrating/upgrading the Koha, the info should still be there. Did the call numbers not end up in Koha somehow? How did you go about mapping your 090 into Koha? If it didn't work and you still have the original data, you might want to: · attempt mapping the 090 data into a properly formatted 852 field; or, as a stop-gap · select a 9xx number field that wasn't used in your data and isn't used in Koha and move the call numbers there with a global MARC editor (see the MARC tools pages at LC for MARCEdit) Or if Koha currently supports global edits of its MARC data (does it? I don't remember reading so) I suppose you could do it within the system. As for issues, I would guess that if the data did map, you'd now have items types of all the LC classes. That oughta be a neat wake-up call to patrons! ;-) As for the 001 field, yes, you're mostly right. Its formal definition is Control Number, that is, the number the ILS knows the item by, acting as a primary key for the database structure holding all the bibliographic records (i.e. it must be unique within the whole mass). Hope this helps. If you want some help with the 852 write me back off-list and I'll be glad to assist. Cheers, Steven F. Baljkas library tech at large Koha neophyte Winnipeg, MB CANADA
Bigwood, David said:
The call number in 050 and 090 are for the manifestation of the work not the individual copy. 852, is for copy information, so that would not be a good choice to map the info to. Greg's records should have a field with copy info including a call number, location within his institution, cost, fund info and whatever his institution needs to attach to that copy. That is good for 852.
050 and 090 classification information is not copy related.
Would anybody out there like to suggest a MARC tag other than 090 or the 8xx or 9xx tags (too commonly used for holdings information) that would be "safe" for holding the non-MARC linking information to the Koha database? (Please remember that Koha should be international, so we need to consider unimarc format, too.) -- Stephen Hedges Skemotah Solutions, USA www.skemotah.com -- shedges@skemotah.com
Hi All! I can't resist this one! I agree with Stephen that we should have a MARC tag that Koha will use for "non-MARC linking" information. The philosophical underpinnings of MARC contain the convention that any tag that contains a 9 in any position may be locally defined. As has been mentioned in earlier messages, the 090 field (actually most of the 090's) have often been used to store local call number information, by such august groups as the Library of Congress, OCLC, etc. Additionally the 900 field was originally defined to hold local call numbers in a diskette transfer format called MicroLIF prior to 1991. (Post 1991 it changed to use 852, using subfield 9 to hold price). Other ILS vendors used 999, 949, and 959 at various times to store the same information - following the philosophy stated above. Other 900 fields have been used for other functions but these are the only ones I know of that have had any major significance. Id like to suggest using the 930 or the 970 fields for any Koha special needs. Neither, to my knowledge, has had any major use. We could define the field or fields and subfields we need and publish this as part of our system specifications. This would be appropriate use of the MARC structure and would work in both MARC 21 and UNIMARC. Hope that helps. Regards, Al Calame Librarian-at-Large, Albert P. Calame Consulting Montreal, Québec, Canada 514-745-3424 albert.p.calame@sympatico.ca ----- Original Message ----- From: "Stephen Hedges" <shedges@skemotah.com> To: "Bigwood, David" <Bigwood@lpi.usra.edu> Cc: <koha@lists.katipo.co.nz> Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2003 10:39 AM Subject: RE: [Koha] 090 Fields
Bigwood, David said:
The call number in 050 and 090 are for the manifestation of the work not the individual copy. 852, is for copy information, so that would not be a
good
choice to map the info to. Greg's records should have a field with copy info including a call number, location within his institution, cost, fund info and whatever his institution needs to attach to that copy. That is good for 852.
050 and 090 classification information is not copy related.
Would anybody out there like to suggest a MARC tag other than 090 or the 8xx or 9xx tags (too commonly used for holdings information) that would be "safe" for holding the non-MARC linking information to the Koha database? (Please remember that Koha should be international, so we need to consider unimarc format, too.)
-- Stephen Hedges Skemotah Solutions, USA www.skemotah.com -- shedges@skemotah.com _______________________________________________ Koha mailing list Koha@lists.katipo.co.nz http://lists.katipo.co.nz/mailman/listinfo/koha
participants (3)
-
Albert P. Calame -
Bigwood, David -
Stephen Hedges