[OPEN-ILS-GENERAL] ***SPAM*** Re: MARC for electronic resources

[Melissa Belvadi]

Elizabeth, hi. You might want to look at the redesign we did recently
(Dan Scott did, following the work of another library), on our Holdings
area. 
I'm not sure if it answers all of your concerns, but it greatly cleans
up the copy area, and we changed the wording of the "no copies" message
to instead direct them to find the 856 link or other local holdings note
above. 

example:
http://islandpines.roblib.upei.ca/opac/en-CA/skin/roblib/xml/rdetail.xml?r=813898&ol=4&t=ebrary%20nursing&tp=keyword&l=4&d=2&hc=196&rt=keyword


Melissa Belvadi 


>>> On 9/30/2010 at 10:08 AM, in message
<4CA4826D.86CB.008D.0 at groupwise.upei.ca>, Elizabeth Thomsen
<et at noblenet.org> wrote:



Those sound like great enhancements for managing transcendence!

We have a couple of other questions about electronic resources in the
catalog.  Is there any way to suppress the whole copy display area?
That
would be the "View copy information for all libraries" link, the
column
headings for copy information, the statement "There are no copies in
this location" when, of course, there are -- they just aren't physical
copies.

Also, is there a way to lose the Place Hold link on these?

Thanks in advance for any suggestions!

On 9/30/2010 8:34 AM, Melissa Belvadi wrote:
>
>
> I recommend you seriously consider using the "source" option that
Dan
> listed.
>
> To give you more detail, every bib record has attached to it a field
> called the "source".
>
> There's a table that lists all of the possible sources (you can add
more
> as needed), and for each one, whether it is "transcendent" or not.
>
> Transcendent simply means that the record will be visible in the
OPAC
> without any items attached and even if you haven't added anything
extra
> to the 856.
>
> So, for instance, for our ebooks, we have a special "source" which
is
> set to transcendent, and when we add ebook records, we change the
source
> from the default to this other source.
>
> I just find this a cleaner option from a cataloguing perspective
than
> adding a subfield to the 856.
>
>
> Very recently, we (UPEI) had the wonderful Dan Scott add two things
to
> make this much easier - the ability to modify the source in the
staff
> client on a per-record basis, and a fix to the Vandeley (Batch
import)
> so that the "source" pulldown there actually worked.
>
>
> Dan, is that code out there for Mary to use in her system yet?
>
>
> FYI, the table in question is config.bib_source for your SQL people,
and
> the bib field that references it is biblio.record_entry.source.
>
>
> Melissa Belvadi
>
>
>
>
>
> ---
> Melissa Belvadi
> Emerging Technologies & Metadata Librarian
> University of Prince Edward Island
> mbelvadi at upei.ca
> 902-566-0581
>
>
>
>  >>> On 9/29/2010 at 11:02 AM, in message <4CA34A0A.D6C : 92 :
60780>,
> Mary Llewellyn <mllewell at biblio.org> wrote:
>
> Ah, that's disappointing. The display of multiple 856s will be ugly
and
> confusing to the library patrons.
>
> Thanks for the reply.
>
> Mary
>
>
> At 08:58 AM 9/29/2010, you wrote:
>
>> Quoting Mary Llewellyn <mllewell at biblio.org>:
>>
>>> Jumping in here with a question about adding subfield 9. If we
have
>>> more than one library subscribed to an e-resource, can we add
>>> multiple subfields 9 to a single 856 to display the bib in each of
>>> those libraries' public catalogs?
>>>
>>
>> You can add multiple 856 tags. IIRC they are repeatable.
>>
>> Also, in checking the code, it looks like you're expected to add
>> multiple 856s, one for each holding library.
>>
>> Also, in 2.0 at least, the shortname can go in a subfield 9, w, or
n.
>>
>> HtH,
>> Jason Stephenson
>> Merrimack Valley Library Consortium
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Sent from my iPad
>>>
>>> On Sep 28, 2010, at 9:30 PM, Dan Scott <dan at coffeecode.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Tue, Sep 28, 2010 at 05:13:03PM -0500, Deanna Frazee wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Thanks Dan,
>>>>>
>>>>> It makes sense. But my problem is that the MARC record is not
>>>>> displaying at all in the public catalog. I'm assuming this is
because
>>>>> there is no holding record, but perhaps I'm wrong?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> There are three ways a record can be made visible in the public
>>>> catalogue:
>>>> * Set the record source to a transcendent source
>>>> * Add a copy with a visible status in a visible copy location in
a
>>>> visible library
>>>> * (As of 1.6) add an 856, first indicator 4, second indicator 0,
>>>> with a $9 subfield with a value matching a shortname in your
>>>> search scope
>>>>
>>>> If your record isn't displaying in the public catalog, and you
have an
>>>> 856 40 $9 SHORTNAME in the record, then perhaps something else is
wrong
>>>> with the record or your configuration. At this point, without a
concrete
>>>> example, there's not much I can do to help diagnose the problem
>>>> further.
>>>>
>>
> Mary Llewellyn
>
> Mary Llewellyn
> Database Manager
> Bibliomation, Inc.
> Middlebury, CT
>
> mllewell at biblio.org
>


--
Elizabeth Thomsen, Member Services Manager
NOBLE: North of Boston Library Exchange
26 Cherry Hill Drive
Danvers MA 01923
Blog: http://www.noblenet.org/ethomsen/
E-mail: et at noblenet.org

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://libmail.georgialibraries.org/pipermail/open-ils-general/attachments/20100930/d9c4bc45/attachment-0001.htm