[117] in ad-lib
Re: Imago Meret Oppenheim
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Sarah Mitchell)
Thu Mar 9 16:56:14 1995
To: wpowers@MIT.EDU
Cc: ad-cat@MIT.EDU, ealtier@MIT.EDU
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 09 Mar 1995 14:13:37 EST."
<9503091913.AA10391@macfadden.MIT.EDU>
Date: Thu, 09 Mar 1995 16:55:40 EST
From: Sarah Mitchell <smitchel@MIT.EDU>
MR happened to call me this afternoon, so, I ran the problem by him.
I don't know about the Masters of Illusion, but, the problem with
IMAGO is one that will appear on lots of our records. According to
MR, in the 8000-Advance conversion the Advance 'parser' created
holdings whenever it saw a 949 field. Well, as you know, we have
plenty of 949 fields on our records. Michel says that they can strip
all of these blank location holdings that were created from the 949s.
We think its probably a good idea, but, Stephen Skuce is going to do
some further checking before we run this through Grant as an
'official' fix to a trouble sheet. (A trouble sheet has already gone
to Grant about another record that had this problem)
Does this explanation make sense for Eileen Spittel's Masters of
Illusion problem?
--Sarah
p.s. I'd caught my messaging error regarding Eileen so I'd e-mailed
her that we were looking into this.
>Sarah - I think this has something to do with the problem that you are
>querying MR about, concerning Advance's never bumping an in process
>record. Of the two holdings records attached to this title, one
>reflects the information from the Acq record (with price info.)
> and one the information
>from the on-order record that appears (and is still appearing) in the
>catalog. (It isn't a back-transfer problem, because there is no Circ
>record to have back-transferred.) The other title, Masters of
>illusion, that Eileen Spettel mentioned has the full-MARC record, but
>it also has as a second holding the Acq record with an "In Processing"
>status.
> I don't think you "messaged" Eileen (or massaged her either.) Do
>you want me to, and say it's under investigation? (One of the Acq
>sub-groups has noted this problem and sent reports to Grant, but I
>don't know if they are aware of the "no-overwrite" aspect of Advance.)
> I remain,
> Yr. obt. svt.,
> Wltr
>
>>I looked up this record in 3 of the OPACs: Geac 8000, CDBarton, and
>>Geac Advance (not GEOPAC). Both Geac 8000 and CDBarton still have
>>Imago Meret Oppenheim as an on order record. You're right, though,
>>that the Geac Advance system shows 2 copies. I think this is worth
>>reporting on one of Grant's trouble sheets My guess is that something
>>happened in the back transfer from Circ that may have provided that
>>additional copy. That doesn't seem likely, but, does anyone else have
>>a guess as to what might have happened?
>>
>>--------
>>Sarah Mitchell
>>3-1928
