 Library & Information Technology Association |
||
|
GROUP: LITA/ALCTS MARC Formats Interest Groupÿ(MFIG) CHAIR: Margi Mann, OCLC Western Service Center REPORTER: Margi Mann EMAIL: mannm@oclc.org CONFERENCE: 2005 ALA Annual Conference (Chicago, IL) MEETING: Interest Group meeting ATTENDEES: 38 CURRENT ACTIVITIES: the 2005 ALA Annual conference in Chicago, IL. 1a. In the role of presenting topics of current interest to the MARC community, MFIG hosted a forum to share information about and discuss upcoming implementations and new applications for the MARC Format for Holdings (MFHD) by OCLC and others. The forum was entitled "Building a Holdings Architecture for Tomorrow" and had three main discussion leaders: Linda Gabel, OCLC Online Computer Library Center, Inc.; Nathan D.M. Robertson, Johns Hopkins University; and Eugene Dickerson, National Library of Medicine. Linda Gabel described OCLC's current plan for migrating the Union List service from the Union List Subsystem using Passport, and converting the Local Data Records to conform to the MARC 21 Format for Holdings Data. She noted that OCLC's implementation is not restricted to serials, and she also presented some of theÿways in which OCLC is planning to build use of the data into its services. View OCLC and the MARC 21 Format for Holdings Data (PowerPoint format) Nathan D.M. Robertson from John Hopkins Universit ÿgave a brief overview of the work of NISO/EDItEUR- Joint Working Party ONIX for Serials.ÿ He will described the work of the Coverage subcommittee in developing an XML structure for the integration of coverage information from suppliers (publishers, aggregators, subscription agents, etc), to ILS systems which use the MFHD. View ONIX for Serials and the ONIX Coverage Statement (PowerPoint format) Eugene Dickerson gave a brief announcement of the National Library of Medicine's plan to partially implement the MARC Holdings format for its DOCLINE/SERHOLD interlibrary loan system. There was a fairly extensive question & answer period afterwards, and several questions were posed to the presenters for future follow-up. 1b. Questions posed at the MARC Holdings forum, with answers. a. For OCLC: Q: There is a concern that libraries are creating Level 4 holdings, but they are also participating in SERHOLD, which only supports Level 3. How will the OCLC-to-SERHOLD and the SERHOLD-to-OCLC transfers work with these different reporting levels? A: If the library creates a Level 4 record in OCLC, then transfers the record to SERHOLD, NLM will load what data it can.ÿ NLM will need to re-write their program which loads from OCLC to SERHOLD anyway because of the data format change, and this has not yet been discussed. For SERHOLD to OCLC, OCLC will continue to load the Level 3 holdings as they are received. Should the time come when NLM supports Level 4, OCLC will make adjustments to include that, too. Q: How will OCLC include the publication pattern data in MFHD? Will the OCLC record # be in the 004? A: OCLC the publication pattern data will continue to be part of the bibliographic record for now, and the data will display on the screen with the rest of the holdings data. OCLC has implemented the appropriate subfields. In the first release, the only way to populate holdings records with the publication patterns will be to cut and paste the data from the pub pattern displayed from the bib, or type them in. Also, the OCLC # will be in the 004 field. Q: For USNP participants, will OCLC use the 853/863 prospectively? If sent, how will it be stored and/or displayed? A: For conversion, OCLC has moved the data to an 866 field. This is because of the way USNP data was originally input into the LDRs.ÿ For existing records, it will be clearly identified by the second indicator value 7 and a subfield $2 with the code usnp.ÿ For new records, OCLC will require input into 866 so they can continue to identify this data. Q: Please confirm that circulation status checks are not part of Level 4. A: This is not in OCLC's current implementation of MARC Holdings. NCIP implementation in WorldCat Resource Sharing in the future may or may not do this. Q: There is some concern that 852 subfields $a and $b will contain only the OCLC library codes. Some libraries present at the forum indicated they would want to enter other codes. A: Within the OCLC environment (i.e. WorldCat, the cataloging system, and FirstSearch), OCLC will use the OCLC library symbols. The 852 $a is the OCLC library symbol, and the $b is the OCLC holding library code. However, this is something that we change during batchload and could change on output as well (i.e. importing and exporting). We have always needed to translate this information, and we will continue to do so. Libraries can continue to use whatever codes theyÿwant to in their local systems. It's important to note, too, that the $b is repeatable. Only the first $b must be the OCLC holding library code. Users can put whatever they want in subsequent $b subfields. b. For ONIX: Q: How can libraries make available to publishers holdings information so that other communities can make use of it (e.g. standardize for publishers what is the volume, what is the caption, etc.)? A: ONIX for serials is working on standards, in XML, to exchange this data between all interested parties. In the near future the Coverage group will post their draft for comment on the JWP web site. A variety of use cases in also under discussion. Q: What communication(s) is there between ONIX and the MODS/METS group? A: There was communication between these two groups early on, but it fell apart, and there is none currently. Now may be the time to "catch-up". Q: TDNet, Serials Solutions, and other vendors need full enumeration, etc. in order to ensure compliance and accuracy. Can ONIX do anything to help with this? A: ONIX through the JWP is working on such standards. c. For NLM: Q: Is the NLM going to implement captions in its SERHOLD statements? A: No 2. Other items: a. Helen Gbala informed the attendees of ALAs move to structured, predictable timeslots for future meetings, and she solicited preferences from the attendees. They indicated a preference for the Saturday 1:30 - 3:30 timeslot. b. Helen Gbala solicited suggestions from the group as to possible topics for future MFIG meetings. After some discussion, there was a consensus for a discussion on a MARC Authorities topic at Midwinter 2006 and a follow-up to today's MARC Holdings meeting at Annual 2006. c. Margi Mann informed the group that the MFIG website on the ALA website was now current, and she encouraged people to send her their suggestions fur any additional content. d. Jian Wang of Portland State University was elected as they new co-chair. She has since resigned. FUTURE ACTIVITIES: Future topics under consideration Discussion of the MARC Authority format in relation to RDA and FRBR Update on the MFHD implementation after 6 months MARC Community Information Formats Discussion of the MARC Authority format in relation to RDA and FRBR Update on the MFHD implementation after 6 months MARC Community Information Formats Discussion of the MARC Authority format in relation to RDA and FRBR Update on the MFHD implementation after 6 months MARC Community Information Formats Related Files |
||
