[689] in ad-lib
A problem with one of the practice questions
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (ninadm@MIT.EDU)
Thu May 25 12:25:36 1995
From: ninadm@MIT.EDU
To: opac-lib@MIT.EDU
Date: Thu, 25 May 1995 12:24:36 EDT
Some of us have been using Carole's practice questions in training.
David Murphy has just identified a problem with one of the questions.
Here are David's message and Sam's response which clarifies the
problem.
------- Forwarded Message
Date: Wed, 24 May 1995 10:08:59 EDT
From: dwmurphy@MIT.EDU
To: ninadm@MIT.EDU, csrobins@MIT.EDU
Subject: Advance practice questions - error?
In going over the practice questions, it seems to me that there
is a flaw in the answer to number 8, Call # Z253.3.R39 1991-
"... Can you tell me what is going on?"
The answer is given ... "two copies, one in processing, one in stacks."
As I read the holdings there is only one copy, where for
some reason the precat record was not over written when it
was cataloged. If this continues in the new system, and I
am hopeful that it won't, telling people that there are two
copies adds a layer of mis-information.
- - David M.
------- End of Forwarded Message
Received: from SOUTH-STATION-ANNEX.MIT.EDU by po6.MIT.EDU (5.61/4.7) id AA19512; Wed, 24 May 95 17:16:09 EDT
Received: from MACFADDEN.MIT.EDU by MIT.EDU with SMTP
id AA17266; Wed, 24 May 95 17:16:07 EDT
From: sbyrd@MIT.EDU
Received: by macfadden.MIT.EDU (5.57/4.7) id AA12189; Wed, 24 May 95 17:16:05 -0400
Message-Id: <9505242116.AA12189@macfadden.MIT.EDU>
To: ninadm@MIT.EDU
Subject: Re: Solve all my problems, please
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 24 May 1995 16:05:49 EDT."
<9505242005.AA11379@macfadden.MIT.EDU>
Date: Wed, 24 May 1995 17:16:04 EDT
Nina, this looks like a classic "phantom holdings" thing--see Bug
19--or the "spurious holdings" problem --see Bugs 159 and 126. In the
phantom holdings bug, unreal holdings were created during the back
transfer of records from Circ. I think. Geac claims this will be
fixed for 2nd GMA. The spurious holdings problem is caused sometimes
when a record is edited; "new" holdings somehow appear, with their own
non-barcode generated (the "barcode number" begins with an N--just
like the one in David's example. If you look at the "in process"
holding, you'll see the barcode number is actually the shorter number
that begins with an N). The spurious holdings problem is Ad-cat's #1
"drop-dead bug." Geac hasn't responded yet about this one. I think
that's what David's example is. In any case, the problem has been
noted and is "in process" itself. Feel free to forward this on to David.
One down, hope there aren't many more to go!
Sam
