|MARC field||MARC type||Change logic||Related feature||Source of change |
|LDR||Holdings||Update 00-04 position with a new record length||Create/Update MARC/Import MARCs||mod-quick-marc|
|001||Holdings||Autopopulate Holdings HRID||Create MARC/Import MARCs|
|001||Holdings|| ||Import MARCs||mod-source-record-manager|
|003||Holdings||Move field value with 001 to 035 and remove||Import MARCs||mod-source-record-manager|
|005||Holdings|| ||Create/Update MARC/Import MARCs||mod-quick-marc|
|010||Holdings||Add additional spaces to match valid LC control number||Create/Update MARC/Import MARCs||mod-quick-marc|
|035||Holdings||Set data from 001 and 003 field||Import MARCs||mod-source-record-manager|
|999ff||Holdings||Update $s and $i with newly created SRS Record and Holdings IDs||Create MARC/Import MARCs||mod-source-record-storage / mod-source-record-manager/ mod-inventory-storage|
|XXX||Holdings||Remove field if its content is empty||Create/Update MARC ||mod-quick-marc|
Not sure why we need validation to not allow 006, 007, 245 fields in holdings?
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?
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.
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)
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.
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.