[Koha] data import question - a few more thoughts

[baljkas at mb.sympatico.ca]

Friday, July 25, 2003	 14:22 CDT

David,

Thank you for the very helpful rejoinder.

I plead guilty to going with what was familiar to me. In all honesty,
working with the few systems that I have, I'd never seen the holdings
fields used and so hadn't looked into the 876. Of course, you are right.
Very neat. Thank you for pointing all of us in a better direction!

The FRBR stuff is also something I've yet to get into as keeping up with
MARC has always seemed enough of a challenge. ;-)

Thanks again,

Steven F. Baljkas
library tech at large
Koha neophyte
Winnipeg, MB  CANADA

see P.S. below


"Bigwood, David" <Bigwood at lpi.usra.edu> wrote:
>Steven,
>
>Most of this I agree with 100%. Well said, it deserves better
>distribution.
>
>However putting copy information into 037 is not the way I'd go. It is
>not easy to distinguish the different information for different copies
>there. Also, if we take a FRBR approach 037 seems to apply to the
>expression but acquisition information belongs at the item level.

P.S. when I'd used it that way, David, I'd taken advantage of its
repeatability and the note fields to clarify the relationship of the price
to the item level; nevertheless, you are right in what you say in
recommending the 876.

>Field 876 seems a better choice. That would tie the donated copy from
>1999 to one item and the 1998 copy costing 45.00 from a particular fund
>with another copy.
>
>Sincerely,
>David Bigwood
>bigwood at lpi.usra.edu
>Lunar & Planetary Institute
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: baljkas at mb.sympatico.ca [mailto:baljkas at mb.sympatico.ca]
>Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2003 7:51 PM
>To: larry at larrystamm.com; koha
>Cc: baljkas at mb.sympatico.ca
>Subject: Re:[Koha] data import question - a few more thoughts
>

>Thursday, July 24, 2003   18:46 CDT
>
>Hi, Larry,
>
>Glad that some of what I wrote was useful. I know that the MARC stuff
>isn't easy for those who haven't been 'initiated' into its mysteries.
>
>[major snip] Personally, I would have preferred the data to be placed
>in a good old 037 tag. To my mind, its subfields provide for all of the
>above, plus it can be entered at the time one creates a temporary >minimal
record (to indicate to patrons searching that an item is
>on-order for example) without the need to muck about with the 852 or
>other call number field until the work is received in cataloguing.
>
>The map for the 037, is simple
>   $a Stock number - possibly useful for re-ordering/replacement
>   $b Source of stock number/acquisition **
>   $c Terms of availability = (in almost all cases) price **
>   $f Form of issue - easily adaptable to be an institution's needs
>      with a ltd. institution-specific set of terms or more ones
>      more generally recognised
>   $n Note - where you could easily enter acquisition fund (usually
>      coded in most institutions anyway), order date and received-in
>      date
>
>ex. 037 _ _ $bBook Barn $c$22.50 $c$5.00 (sale price) $fTrade pbk.
>	    $nGenBkFund; ordered 20021209; received 20030108.