This sounds very interesting.
Does it work so that a bib will appear in some libraries' public
catalogs and not in others? For instance, we have 30 libraries in our
consortium of 70+ that subscribe to Overdrive downloadable audiobooks
and ebooks. Each will have their own view of the public catalog. The
nonsubscribers' patrons should not see the bib record, while,
obviously, the subscribers' patrons should.
Our main consortium isn't using Evergreen yet (we have a small
cluster of "developmental partner" libraries that are giving us the
chance to get EG-fluent); we're migrating to it by the end of May. So
there's some time for us to work things like this out.
Mary
At 08:34 AM 9/30/2010, 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
[email protected]
902-566-0581
>>> On 9/29/2010 at 11:02 AM, in message <4CA34A0A.D6C : 92 :
60780>, Mary Llewellyn <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]>:
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 <[email protected]> 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
[email protected]
Mary Llewellyn
Mary Llewellyn
Database Manager
Bibliomation, Inc.
Middlebury, CT
[email protected]
