[Koha] [EXTERNAL] NCIP User Question - biblionum in 001 vs 999c

[Paul A]

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 at nps.gov
> Library catalog: http://keys.bywatersolutions.com/
> _______________________________________________
> Koha mailing list  http://koha-community.org
> Koha at lists.katipo.co.nz
> https://lists.katipo.co.nz/mailman/listinfo/koha
> 
>