Changes to MARC fields that done by the system

MARC fieldMARC typeChange logicRelated featureSource of change 
LDRHoldingsUpdate 00-04 position with a new record lengthCreate/Update MARC/Import MARCsmod-quick-marc
001HoldingsAutopopulate Holdings HRIDCreate MARC/Import MARCs
001HoldingsMove field value with 003 to 035 and set holdings HRID Import MARCsmod-source-record-manager
003HoldingsMove field value with 001 to 035 and removeImport MARCsmod-source-record-manager
005HoldingsSet current date-time Create/Update MARC/Import MARCsmod-quick-marc
010HoldingsAdd additional spaces to match valid LC control numberCreate/Update MARC/Import MARCsmod-quick-marc
035HoldingsSet data from 001 and 003 fieldImport MARCsmod-source-record-manager
999ffHoldingsUpdate $s and $i with newly created SRS Record and Holdings IDsCreate MARC/Import MARCsmod-source-record-storage / mod-source-record-manager/ mod-inventory-storage
XXXHoldingsRemove field if its content is emptyCreate/Update MARC mod-quick-marc

MARC Holdings Validation rules in quickMARC

MARC fieldMARC typeValidation rule
  • The Leader must contain 24 characters, including null spaces
  • Only positions 05, 06, 17, and 18 can be edited in the Leader
  • Required field for MARC Holdings record
  • Is a valid instance record HRID with Source = MARC 
  • No indicators or subfield codes supported 
  • Can only have one 004
  • No change from MARC bib validation
  • Unexpected length of the field
  • No change from MARC bib validation
008HoldingsUnexpected length of the field
  • Subfield length should be more than 3 characters
  • No change from MARC bib validation
01X - 999HoldingsOnly 2 indicators with one-character values can exist
  • Not required for a MARC holdings record
  • One 852 is required for a MARC Holdings record
  • $b = a location code setup in Settings > Tenant > Locations 
aaa-zzzHoldingsAlphabetical fields are restricted


  1. Not sure why we need validation to not allow 006, 007, 245 fields in holdings?

    1. Thanks Laura Daniels for the feedback. We are not changing 007 quickMARC validation and so a user will be able to add/update a 007 value as s/he is able to do today when editing a bib record via quickMARC.

      Having a 245 is required and a validation rule for editing/deriving a bib record via quickMARC. So I thought it better to just not allow a user to add a Holdings record with a 245. But I could just make 245 not required and have no validation rule at all. What are your thoughts? 

  2. I have a hard time imagining anyone trying to add any of these three fields to a holdings record, so I would expect no validation rules around them.

  3. I am wondering what the use-case is for including this "Move field value with 003 to 035 and set holdings HRID" in the processes done to MFHD in FOLIO?

    In my experience, there has never been any 003 or 035 data in holdings data, so this looks weird to me.  I am concerned that lacking this data may cause FOLIO to choke a little on migrating holdings into the system and/or creating new MARC holdings within FOLIO either by manual or batch creation (when that is possible)

  4. Hi Jacquie Samples My understanding is that the 004 is the super-important field for the MARC Holdings, since that's what tells FOLIO which Instance the holdings data belongs to. And since there's currently only the Create action for MARC Holdings via Data Import, not Update, there's not any additional matching on Holdings HRID/UUID or Permanent Location that happens.

    I agree with concerns about 001/003/035 in MARC Holdings records.

    So long as they are not required fields, and so long as we create tests to ensure that: 

    1) Including them does not cause FOLIO to error, and the 001/003/035 manipulation happens properly

    2) Excluding them does not cause FOLIO to error

    then I think all should be OK.

  5. Hi Ann-Marie Breaux yes, the 004 is very important in that it contains the system number for the bibliographic record where "the things held" are fully described.  No question about that.  I do think that the 001 should be in the MARC holdings record, of course, since it is the system number of the holding record, and is required.  All that to say that the tests you describe seem necessary, but also we should test the situation where, during migration, the lack of these data don't cause problems. This is probably covered in your test number 2.