# Presentation: 786281

## Holdings Session 7Trends & Issues in MARC 21 Holdings

- Holdings Session 7Trends & Issues in MARC 21 Holdings

*CONSER Publication Patterns Initiative*
*Universal holdings*
*Current issues with MARC 21 Holdings*
*What is “compliance” with MARC 21 Holdings?*
*Features to look for when shopping for a system*
*MARC 21 Holdings format problems & changes*
*Other?*

**Notes:**
Holdings Session 7: Trends & Issues in MARC 21 Holdings
Contents

CONSER Publication Patterns Initiative:  a shared pattern archive

Publication history:  emergence of the “universal holdings” concept.  What is it?  How can we benefit from it?

Current issues:  interfaces, relationship to bibliographic data, relationship to item data, etc.

Compliance:  LITA and the MARC Formats Interest Group (MFIG) grappling to develop a definition of systems compliance.

Problems & Changes:  What problems do we have using this format? Can we help each other?

## The CONSER Publication Patterns Initiative

*Why is a pattern and holdings archive desirable?*
*What is the Project Experiment?*
*What other goals does the Project have?*
*What are the differences between  Project work and ordinary holdings work? What are the similarities?*
*How do libraries join and participate?*

## The pattern archive idea

- Automated check-in and the MARC standard inspired libraries to call for an archive of publication patterns for libraries to share.
-  Questions:
- Who would provide the data?
- Who would manage it?
- How would it be funded?
- How would standards and quality control work?
- How would wide access be preserved?
- Just Patterns? Or Pieces Published, too?
- CONSER TF in early 90’s tried to establish such an archive.  Though attempt failed, benefits remained clear

**Notes:**
The Pattern Archive Idea and its Benefits
Automated check-in starts with a publication pattern, which resides in the online serials control system and is used to predict the arrival of the next issue and what that issue’s numbering will be.  

Especially with the standardization provided by the MARC Format for Holdings, automated check-in brought the possibility of sharing patterns among libraries, which otherwise would have to create each pattern separately.  Several articles explored the possibilities but also raised questions.

In  fact, a CONSER project was launched in the early 90s to establish an archive of patterns only, not tied to specific journal titles. The main reason this limited project lapsed was the still sparse use of the USMARC Format for Holdings Data.  However, the benefits of sharing patterns remained clear to libraries seeking to automate their serials management processes.

## Benefits for libraries

- Patterns
- create once, use multiple times
- communicate seamlessly between systems
- enable prediction locally
- accurate pattern for display and compression/expansion
- Holdings
- determine what has been published
- most need for the data on first issue
- pinpoint when pattern began
- ensure coordination of pattern and holdings

**Notes:**
The benefits applied to both patterns and holdings.
For patterns:
you can create once, and use multiple times
you can communicate holdings data seamlessly between systems
patterns enable prediction in a local system
once acquired, the library has an accurate pattern for display and compression/expansion of the OPAC holding
For holdings:
you can determine what has been published
libraries have most need for the data on first issue
pinpoint when pattern began
ensure coordination of changes in pattern with the library’s actual holdings

## Benefits for serials community

- Make data compatible across all systems
- Division of labor of pattern creation
- Widest possible access to information
*These became goals of the *_*new*_
***CONSER  Publication Pattern Initiative!***

**Notes:**
For the serials community as a whole, the benefits of sharing pattern data were:
making data compatible across all online library systems
division of the labor of pattern creation
ensuring the widest possible access to information.

These became the goals of the new CONSER project.

## OCLC & the CONSER database

- MARC-based holdings can be embedded in bibliographic records
- OCLC, which hosts the CONSER database, offered to define holdings format field 891 for embedding regular holdings fields
- Widely used database favors sharing
- With minimal programming, automated transfer of data between local system and utility, and back again
- Present limitation to current data only (may change)

**Notes:**
The New CONSER Publication Patterns and Holdings Project

 CONSER in 1999 undertook a new project to add both patterns and holdings to the CONSER database.
 One of the options for holdings fields, in the Format, is to embed them inside bibliographic records--and that is the mode in the new Project.  

The CONSER database is hosted by OCLC;  so early on, OCLC was asked to be a participant in the Task Force.  Other participants included interested librarians, representatives of library system s, serials jobbers, bibliographic utilities, and standards committees.  

Though  OCLC was already using the regular holdings fields for another purpose, they offered to define a new local field 891 for embedding regular holdings fields.  Use of OCLC had other benefits .
It was a widely used database for sharing
 With minimal programming, a system could achieve automated transfer of data between a local database and the utility, and back again
OCLC’s limited record size was a constraint on adding full holdings, so the project was limited to current serials only.  This could change since space limits no longer apply.

## Standard :MARC Format for Holdings Data

- Standard :MARC Format for Holdings Data

- Use of MFHD in view of current rapid adoption by libraries, systems
- to give libraries practice in using the format
- to improve the format
- to discuss and promote better implementations in systems

**Notes:**
The current rapid spread of the MARC Format for Holdings Data in libraries and library systems gave the Task Force the opportunity to adopt it as the Project standard:

to give libraries practice in using the format,
to help improve the format
to discuss and promote better implementations in systems
to provide libraries with documentation and full understanding of the MARC Holdings format, thus ensuring fuller use and testing of existing functionality.

## The CONSER experiment

- Documentation on the CONSER Web Site
- Began June 1, 2000
- Libraries replace records in OCLC to add pairs of 891 fields
- Field 1 --*captions and pattern* (i.e., the parts and how they are issued)
- Field 2-- *enumeration and chronology* data for the first issue in that pattern
- Data available for cut & paste or other ways of importing into local systems

**Notes:**
The Experiment

The kernel of the Publication Patterns and Holdings Project was the CONSER Experiment.  Documentation was written and posted to the CONSER web site, including a FAQ and editing guidelines for the project.

A small, but growing, number of participating libraries began to enter data into actual records on June 1, 2000.   
The libraries in the project use CONSER Enhance authorizations to add  data to records.  This data consists of paired fields both tagged 891:

	Field 1 contains the captions and pattern (i.e., the parts and how they are issued) 
	Field 2 contains the enumeration and chronology data for the first issue in that pattern

When other libraries use the record, the holdings pattern and first issue data are available for import into a local serials control system or OPAC. 

## The first pattern entered!

- _Heart failure reviews (OCLC #35601086)_
- 891 30  $9 853 $8 1 $a v. $b no. $u 4 $v r $i (year) $j (month) $w q $x 03
- 891 41  $9 863 $8 1.1 $a <5> $b <1> $i <2000> $j <03>
- 	  	*Input by:  University of Cincinnati Health Sciences Libraries*

**Notes:**
This is a picture of the first pair of 891 fields added to a record; note the record title (Heart failure reviews) and the OCLC control number.  This record was edited  by the University of Cincinnati Health Sciences Libraries.

As we have learned, 891 fields are input to carry the data.  The first 891 fields carry the captions and pattern; the second carry the enumeration and chronology of the first issue available.  The inputter’s lack of certainty that the issue given was really the first issue in the pattern is indicated in the usual CONSER manner, by the use of angle brackets.   

[Trainers:  You could refresh memories here by allowing the audience to help you explicate the pattern, which is a very simple quarterly beginning in March of the year.]   

Follow-up note:  VTLS, Innovative, and ExLibris have been able to import this holdings data from OCLC into their MFHD-based serials control systems. Innovative Interfaces has a loader for the data.

## How members participate

- Most use a Connexion macro designed by Robert Bremer (OCLC) which creates 891 fields from the data in the bib. record
- May use cut and paste from local systems
- Feb. 2001: Load of Harvard MFHD data (over 40,000 records)

**Notes:**
The Library of Congress is one of the participants in the Experiment.  It will enter publication patterns and holdings in two ways:

 by manual coding directly into the tagged fields;	
 by automated transfer of data from the Library’s Voyager system.

Other participants use various methods of entering the data.  The macro provided by OCLC has been rewritten for the Connexion system.
Cutting and pasting from MARC holdings in your own or another local system also works.

One of the earliest libraries to use the MARC Format for Holdings was Harvard University.  Their database of 120,000 patterns in MFHD was used selectively to “seed” the OCLC serials database with over 40,000 current patterns.  

## Task Force activitybeyond the CONSER Initiative

- Task Force activitybeyond the CONSER Initiative

- Ongoing discussion (e.g., NASIG and ALA)
- SCCTP holdings workshops
- Participation of:
- OCLC
- potential data providers such as serials subscription agents
- major library system vendors

**Notes:**
Several other tasks are being carried out with the object of:
making the Format complete, accurate, and programmable; 
improving Format documentation, implementation, and evaluation

Along with librarians, this discussion is being carried out with the participation of:
 the major bibliographic utilities;
 potential data providers, such as PAMs and serials subscription agents;
 most of the major library system vendors. 

OCLC has adopted MFHD. At some time, the patterns embedded in the 891 may become part of a new, independent but linked holdings system. The final form of OCLC’s new holdings system, and how the patterns will be permanently stored, is not yet clear.  OCLC is currently investigating all options, while going ahead with its Local Holdings system as rapidly as possible..

The major system vendors do support the holdings format to a considerable degree.  This is very promising for the future.

## Documentation

**On the CONSER Web Site:**
- Task Force Charge
- The CONSER Experiment: Frequently Asked Questions
- Guidelines for Input of Captions/Patterns and Holdings Data
- http://www.loc.gov/acq/conser/patthold.html

## How to participate:

*Contact to apply or ask questions:*
- 	***Les Hawkins****, CONSER Coordinator*
-   	   lhaw@loc.gov

**Notes:**
Any library interested in participating in the project or wanting to find out more about it, is invited to contact Les Hawkins, the CONSER Coordinator, at the Library of Congress.

## Publication History

- Some MFHD data elements are universal in nature . Captions, patterns, and actual issue data of publications as they come from the publisher are “universal holdings.”
- The Task Force also wants to consider the possible use of this data to make holdings data easier to share and more intelligible in all the arenas where it is found.

**Notes:**
“Publication History” is a still-emerging concept, an outgrowth of CONSER’s publication patterns and holdings experiment.

## Publication History and theSuper-Record

- Publication History and theSuper-Record

- _[http://](http://www.lib.unc.edu/cat/mfh/serials_approach_frbr.pdf)__[www.lib.unc.edu/cat/mfh/serials_approach_frbr.pdf](http://www.lib.unc.edu/cat/mfh/serials_approach_frbr.pdf)_
- Proposes creating a “serials super-record” at the “work level” of a serial, linked to all successive titles, linked to the “universal holdings” for each format for a FRBR-like, flexible, unified display.

**Notes:**
The super-record is a way to achieve the elusive benefits of FRBR in the world of serials, which is now fragmented not only by formats and packages of content, but by our successive entry conventions.  Programming would create a kind of tree structure to bring the different titles together in a combined display, with the holdings for all successive titles in a unified display.

## Thinking points with MFHD

**Thinking points with MFHD**

**How Many Holdings Records:**If the library has multiple copies of the item, should it create one holdings record (for all copies), or multiple holdings records (one for each copy)?If the library has multiple versions or formats of the item, should it create one holdings record (for all versions), or multiple holdings records for each version (one per format)?

**Notes:**
Though one holdings record per copy or format is the norm, there are two exceptions:
1.  If all the other elements (e.g., location, call number), are the same, copies may be recorded together, using the copy subfield 86X $t.
If making an institutional report, it may be desirable to combine all holdings.  (Distinguishing the formats is probably still desirable.
	e.g. union lists;  short reports to be inserted in local finding aids or commercial indexing services)		

Possible discussion points:   
What would a composite (multi-copy) report look like?   
	(and, particularly if there are technical folk in the audience): 
Could one be generated from separate holdings records?

## Thinking points with MFHD

**Thinking points with MFHD**

**Electronic Items:**If the library has access to an electronic resource (e-journal, e-book, etc.), should it create a holdings record?   For	all electronic items?  Or for locally-stored electronic items?Or some other variation?

**Notes:**
Many possible variations here:

-Create holdings only for physical items stored in the library
-Create holdings for electronic items that are mounted on a local server
-Create holdings for ALL items (physical and electronic) (locally accessed and remotely accessed)

Other issues with MFHD?  Poll the attendees and create a list on a flipchart.  

## What is “compliance” with MARC 21 holdings? 

- What is “compliance” with MARC 21 holdings?

- Libraries seek to purchase systems that are fully compliant with MFHD, but what is compliance?!
- Current, working definition of compliance is stated on the CONSER website:
- lcweb.loc.gov/acq/conser/MHLDdefinition.html

**Notes:**
This is not a formal or absolute definition of compliance.  It is, however, an excellent starting point for a discussion between libraries and system vendors as to how well or how completely a particular system has implemented the MFHD standard.  

## Features to look for when shopping for a system

*Features to look for when shopping for a system*

- Provide for all MFHD elements
- Import / export MFHD records
- Display MFHD codes on command or by default
- Sequence fields correctly for public display
- Enable user-composed macros
- Make data available to all processing
- Predict future issues
- Generate summary holdings
- Have extra functionality, e.g., reorder fields

**Notes:**
These are specific questions a library can ask a vendor when trying to determine how well or how fully the vendor’s system has implemented the MFHD.  Again, this is just a starting point to a more detailed discussion.  

What other features would or should libraries add to this list?  Ask the trainees to talk about their desired features.  Build a list on a flipchart.

## MARC 21 format problems & changes

- Standard does not yet account for all types of serial frequencies or patterns of publication.
- As a pattern or frequency is identified, MARBI makes additions or modifications to the MFHD

## Summary

*Automated check-in would be greatly facilitated if libraries could share publication patterns and holdings data.*
*Beyond the Experiment, CONSER has set up groups to assess the Format, its documentation, and the needs of its users for both functionality and data.*
*The MFHD format is actively changing to account for more functions, more patterns of publication, and wider implementations.*