Skip Navigation Links  The Library of Congress >> Program for Cooperative Cataloging CONSER Site Map  
CONSER: Cooperative Online Serials
Find in

CONSER Publication Pattern Initiative

Survey on Vendor Support for the MARC 21 Holdings Format

Introduction

In support of the CONSER Task Force on Publication Patterns and Holdings, who are now sharing publication pattern data on current serial publications through CONSER bibliographic record, a survey was conducted in June and July, 2000 to ascertain the degree of support among current ILS vendors for the MARC21 Holdings Format. The eleven ILS vendors responding to the survey are listed below. Some vendors have allowed us to link to recently updated or reconfirmed individual survey responses (as of Dec. 2001).

  • DRA (Data Research Associates), system: TAOS, Version 1
  • Endeavor Information Systems, system: Voyager Version 2000.1.1 Individual survey response
  • EOS International, system: Q Series, Version 2.02 Individual survey response
  • Epixtech, Inc., system: Horizon, Version 5.3+
  • ExLibris. system: Aleph, Version 12.4
  • Gaylord, system: Polaris, Version 1.5
  • GEAC, system: Advance, Version 6.81
  • Innovative Interfaces, system: Millennium, Version II
  • The Library Corporation, system: Library Solution, Version 2.10
  • SIRSI, system: Unicorn, Version 99.4
  • VTLS, system: Virtua, Version 31 Individual survey response

1.  Does your serial check-in software support the USMARC Holdings Format?

10 vendors:YES

1 vendor:No

2.  Does your serials check-in software support automatic issue prediction for receipt purposes?

11 vendors:YES

2.A  If so, are data elements used to provide prediction based on or similar to those provided in the USMARC Holdings Format?

10 vendors:YES

1 vendor:No

3.  Does your system store data elements at the level of detail anticipated by the USMARC Holdings Format, especially the full range of subfield content conveyed in the 85/x fields?

11 vendors:YES

4.  Is your system able to make use of the 85X $y (Regularity pattern) to anticipate normalized irregulars (or regular receipt exceptions) in making automatic issue prediction for serials receiving?

6 vendors:YES

3 vendors:No

2 vendors:In some cases

4.A  Is this support provided for a full range of the frequencies?

8 vendors:YES

1 vendor:No

2 vendors:Not applicable

5.  Does your system contain the capability to import MARC tagged holdings records?

6 vendors:YES

5 vendors:NO

5.A  Please briefly describe how imported MARC-based holdings records with publication patterns are matched to specific serials control records in your system?

6 vendors:Not applicable

5 vendors:Detailed explanation

6.  Does your system have the capability to export MARC tagged holdings records?

7 vendors:YES

4 vendors:No

7. Have users of your system successfully shared exported publication patterns with users of other serials systems in any of the following ways.  Please specify all of the activities (a through d that your system has been able to support.

a.  Exchanged generic patterns for given serial frequencies with other users of your ILS software.

3 vendors:YES

8 vendors:No

b.  Exchanged generic patterns for given serial frequencies with users of other ILS systems.

11 vendors:No

c.  Exchanged title-specific patterns with other users of your ILS system.

9 vendors:No

2 vendors:Yes

d.  Exchanged title-specific patterns with users of other ILS systems.

11 vendors:No

8.  Is it possible for an operator to view 85X/86X fields related to prediction in the Check-in system? In the holdings record?

In the check-in record:

6 vendors:YES

5 vendors:No

8.A  Can the operator view check-in and holdings information in both MARC-coded format and your system's proprietary format (if any) from all technical service screens?

8 vendors:YES

3 vendors:No

8.B  Can an operator make changes to values in the 85X/86X coded fields that impact expected issue descriptions emanating from the ILS prediction engine?

6 vendors:YES

5 vendors:No

(This question examines the degree of integration between coded MARC holdings values and the operation of predictive check-in. For example, I should be able to add a subfield y (*$y om07") to the 853 field of my title to cover the omission of the month of July from prediction. In the truly integrated system envisioned in 7A, such an update to the coded 85X field would cause suppression of the month of July when predicting monthly serial receipts without having to engage in separate manipulation of the check-in software.)

9.  Is the check-in system able to generate MARC holdings data automatically as a by-product of establishing automated issue prediction in support of serials check-in?

9 vendors:No

2 vendors:Yes

10.  Does your system support and predict alternate chronologies such as years based on Arabic calendars?

2vendors:No

9 vendors:Yes

11.  Can you support captions that incorporate diacritics?

7 vendors:YES

4 vendors:No

11.A  Does your software limit the length of captions?  If so, what is the limit?

7 vendors:YES

4 vendors:No

NOTE: Even for those vendors with some kind of limit, the size of the limits were so large that they effectively constituted no true obstacle to a completely descriptive field length.

12.  What elements have you identified as necessary for serials publication patterns that appear to be missing from the current set of fields in the MARC holdings format?  Please describe in detail.
A large variety of suggestions were provided here that will be developed and submitted to MARBI as further elaboration and analysis make possible.

 

Top of pageTop of Page
 The Library of Congress >> Program for Cooperative Cataloging
  April 12, 2011
Legal | External Link Disclaimer
Contact   
CONSER