[281] in ad-lib
Re: summary holdings?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Eric Celeste)
Tue Apr 4 15:30:40 1995
To: sbyrd@MIT.EDU
Cc: ad-cat@MIT.EDU, sercat@MIT.EDU, efinnie@MIT.EDU
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 04 Apr 1995 14:32:19 EDT."
<9504041832.AA11421@macfadden.MIT.EDU>
Date: Tue, 04 Apr 1995 15:30:08 EDT
From: Eric Celeste <efc@MIT.EDU>
Sam asks...
> Eric, the last I heard, y'all were going to put summ holdings in 866
> field. Is this still the case?
YES! Though we have some rather MAJOR hurdles to overcome...
(1) Call numbers in the 866 MUST be indexed with our other call numbers.
(2) 866's should be created by the same 949 expansion process as 852's.
[more about this in a message I've been drafting since yesterday]
(3) Some 866's appear to have been migrated from 949's instead of 930's
and we have not yet figured out why that happened. Note that the
GMA should generate 866's from 930's while our regular lively
process after the final GMA will require that 866's be generated
from the 949's.
(4) Display of the 866 is UGLY! Can the subfields be separated a bit
to help distinguish location from call number from holdings?
Other than that, yeah, 866's are where we will maintain summary holdings!
...Eric
