[Koha] NCIP User Question - biblionum in 001 vs 999c

[Kelly Drake]

Hi all,

The HELM libraries of Massachusetts are new to Koha as of June, 2018. We
are currently working to bring up our instance in the statewide lending
system.

The NCIP message from the statewide lending system is using the 001 for
the biblio number but koha stores this value in the 999c

The question are:

1. Has anyone developed a connector that looks in the 001?
2. Has anyone developed a system to copy the 999c value into the 001?
3. Is there another way to handle this?

[Heather Hernandez]

Hi, Kelly--

Our records in Koha actually have different values in the 001 field based
on the age of the record. When I first thought about this, I pretty much
clutched my pearls and took to my fainting couch, thinking things like,
"But the 001 should be our consistent, primary database key! Oh my stars
and garters!!!"

Then after applying a cool cloth to my forehead I got to thinking about how
we used the 001 and what data was there: based on the age of the record,
it's either an old catalog record number (which I want to keep in the
record) or the OCLC number (which I definitely want to keep in the
record). How do I use it? Well, to just store those numbers, and if I
want to overlay the existing Koha record with a record that I'm exporting
from the OCLC Connexion Client, I include a 999 $c with the Koha record
number in that field in the OCLC record. I'm currently having some trouble
with links into our catalog from our holdings in WorldCat.org, but that
doesn't seem related--we're trying to use ISBNs or title data for that.

So perhaps it might be helpful to ask how you would be using the 001 field
and the 999 $c field, and how it's used among the other libraries. I don't
have a lot of experience with using MarcEdit and such since ByWater
supports our Koha catalog & I happily rely on them for things like this,
but I think it would be entirely possible to export your records to
MarcEdit, copy record numbers that you're not using to another field (e.g.,
035) and copy the Koha biblionumbers to the 001, then reimport/replace the
records. But that sounds kind of drastic to me. I also clutch my pearls
at the thought of data being duplicated in a record, e.g., in the 999 $c as
well as the 001, but I can't think of any harm that it would do in *my*
setting--perhaps others could? Your system would also need some sort of
configuring for ongoing cataloging, to see that the biblionumber gets
copied into the 001.

But if it were me, I'd think long and hard about if this is really
necessary. For us, it's been absolutely fine to have the Koha
biblionumbers in the 999 $c and an assortment of types of numbers in the
001--I've gotten up off my fainting couch, adjusted my pearls, and realized
that it works!:) I hope that others will chime in, because I would be very
interested to know about other options and possible consequences that might
face us in the future since we do have such a variety of numbers in our 001
fields.

I hope this helps! Best,
h2
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Heather Hernandez
Technical Services Librarian
San Francisco Maritime National Historical Park Research Center
2 Marina Blvd., Bldg. E, 3rd floor, San Francisco, CA 94123-1284
415-561-7032, ***@nps.gov
Library catalog: http://keys.bywatersolutions.com/
_______________________________________________
Koha mailing list http://koha-community.org
***@lists.katipo.co.nz
https://lists.

[Paul A]

I'm not sure where this thread is going, but from one "maritime" library
to another, the 001 is defined at
<http://www.loc.gov/marc/bibliographic/bdleader.html> and shouldn't have
anything to do with biblio numbers (which are stored in 999$c as far as
Koha is concerned and are used relationally with numerous other data
entries.)

As to OCLC, our cataloguers see entries at 035$a in the format
"(OCoLC)34125755" (again, see
<http://www.loc.gov/marc/bibliographic/bd035.html> which specifically
mentions OCLC.) Our budget does not cover the cost of OCLC services, so
I am blissfully ignorant of how to use their numbers -- maybe they,
rather than Koha, are better equipped to answer your query?

Best -- Paul

Post by Heather Hernandez
Hi, Kelly--
Our records in Koha actually have different values in the 001 field based
on the age of the record. When I first thought about this, I pretty much
clutched my pearls and took to my fainting couch, thinking things like,
"But the 001 should be our consistent, primary database key! Oh my stars
and garters!!!"
Then after applying a cool cloth to my forehead I got to thinking about how
we used the 001 and what data was there: based on the age of the record,
it's either an old catalog record number (which I want to keep in the
record) or the OCLC number (which I definitely want to keep in the
record). How do I use it? Well, to just store those numbers, and if I
want to overlay the existing Koha record with a record that I'm exporting
from the OCLC Connexion Client, I include a 999 $c with the Koha record
number in that field in the OCLC record. I'm currently having some trouble
with links into our catalog from our holdings in WorldCat.org, but that
doesn't seem related--we're trying to use ISBNs or title data for that.
So perhaps it might be helpful to ask how you would be using the 001 field
and the 999 $c field, and how it's used among the other libraries. I don't
have a lot of experience with using MarcEdit and such since ByWater
supports our Koha catalog & I happily rely on them for things like this,
but I think it would be entirely possible to export your records to
MarcEdit, copy record numbers that you're not using to another field (e.g.,
035) and copy the Koha biblionumbers to the 001, then reimport/replace the
records. But that sounds kind of drastic to me. I also clutch my pearls
at the thought of data being duplicated in a record, e.g., in the 999 $c as
well as the 001, but I can't think of any harm that it would do in *my*
setting--perhaps others could? Your system would also need some sort of
configuring for ongoing cataloging, to see that the biblionumber gets
copied into the 001.
But if it were me, I'd think long and hard about if this is really
necessary. For us, it's been absolutely fine to have the Koha
biblionumbers in the 999 $c and an assortment of types of numbers in the
001--I've gotten up off my fainting couch, adjusted my pearls, and realized
that it works!:) I hope that others will chime in, because I would be very
interested to know about other options and possible consequences that might
face us in the future since we do have such a variety of numbers in our 001
fields.
I hope this helps! Best,
h2
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Heather Hernandez
Technical Services Librarian
San Francisco Maritime National Historical Park Research Center
2 Marina Blvd., Bldg. E, 3rd floor, San Francisco, CA 94123-1284
Library catalog: http://keys.bywatersolutions.com/
_______________________________________________
Koha mailing list http://koha-community.org
https://lists.katipo.co.nz/mailman/listinfo/koha

[Paul Hoffman]

Actually, that's the leader. The 001 field is documented here:

http://www.loc.gov/marc/bibliographic/bd001.html

Paul.

I'm not sure where this thread is going, but from one "maritime" library to
another, the 001 is defined at
<http://www.loc.gov/marc/bibliographic/bdleader.html> and shouldn't have
anything to do with biblio numbers (which are stored in 999$c as far as Koha
is concerned and are used relationally with numerous other data entries.)
As to OCLC, our cataloguers see entries at 035$a in the format
"(OCoLC)34125755" (again, see
<http://www.loc.gov/marc/bibliographic/bd035.html> which specifically
mentions OCLC.) Our budget does not cover the cost of OCLC services, so I am
blissfully ignorant of how to use their numbers -- maybe they, rather than
Koha, are better equipped to answer your query?
Best -- Paul

Post by Heather Hernandez
Hi, Kelly--
Our records in Koha actually have different values in the 001 field based
on the age of the record. When I first thought about this, I pretty much
clutched my pearls and took to my fainting couch, thinking things like,
"But the 001 should be our consistent, primary database key! Oh my stars
and garters!!!"
Then after applying a cool cloth to my forehead I got to thinking about how
we used the 001 and what data was there: based on the age of the record,
it's either an old catalog record number (which I want to keep in the
record) or the OCLC number (which I definitely want to keep in the
record). How do I use it? Well, to just store those numbers, and if I
want to overlay the existing Koha record with a record that I'm exporting
from the OCLC Connexion Client, I include a 999 $c with the Koha record
number in that field in the OCLC record. I'm currently having some trouble
with links into our catalog from our holdings in WorldCat.org, but that
doesn't seem related--we're trying to use ISBNs or title data for that.
So perhaps it might be helpful to ask how you would be using the 001 field
and the 999 $c field, and how it's used among the other libraries. I don't
have a lot of experience with using MarcEdit and such since ByWater
supports our Koha catalog & I happily rely on them for things like this,
but I think it would be entirely possible to export your records to
MarcEdit, copy record numbers that you're not using to another field (e.g.,
035) and copy the Koha biblionumbers to the 001, then reimport/replace the
records. But that sounds kind of drastic to me. I also clutch my pearls
at the thought of data being duplicated in a record, e.g., in the 999 $c as
well as the 001, but I can't think of any harm that it would do in *my*
setting--perhaps others could? Your system would also need some sort of
configuring for ongoing cataloging, to see that the biblionumber gets
copied into the 001.
But if it were me, I'd think long and hard about if this is really
necessary. For us, it's been absolutely fine to have the Koha
biblionumbers in the 999 $c and an assortment of types of numbers in the
001--I've gotten up off my fainting couch, adjusted my pearls, and realized
that it works!:) I hope that others will chime in, because I would be very
interested to know about other options and possible consequences that might
face us in the future since we do have such a variety of numbers in our 001
fields.
I hope this helps! Best,
h2
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Heather Hernandez
Technical Services Librarian
San Francisco Maritime National Historical Park Research Center
2 Marina Blvd., Bldg. E, 3rd floor, San Francisco, CA 94123-1284
Library catalog: http://keys.bywatersolutions.com/
_______________________________________________
Koha mailing list http://koha-community.org
https://lists.katipo.co.nz/mailman/listinfo/koha

_______________________________________________
Koha mailing list http://koha-community.org
https://lists.katipo.co.nz/mailman/listinfo/koha

--
Paul Hoffman <***@flo.org>
Software Manager
Fenway Libraries Online
c/o Wentworth Institute of Technology
550 Huntington Ave.
Boston, MA 02115
[phone] (FLO main number)
_______________________________________________
Koha mailing list http://koha-community.org
***@lists.katipo.

[Joy Nelson]

Hi Kelly and Heather!
In many other ILS systems the 001 was/is indeed a field that contained a
unique value (control number). I still work with data from time to time
that has a unique id in the 001. Heather is right that in Koha the unique
id is stored in the 999$c, so you can use the 001 field for whatever you
like. Some sites put the oclc number in the 001, others just leave it
blank, or just take what comes when cataloging via z3950 (clutch your
pearls on that. :D )

Kelly, I have set up some sites to automatically copy the biblionumber to
the 001 tag. Yes, it duplicates the data from the 999c to the 001, but it
is done programmatically at night so no upkeep would be needed by
cataloging staff. As long as all your libraries are okay with this
configuration and don't plan to use the 001 for anything else, let us know
at ByWater and we can set this up for you.

joy



On Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 10:01 AM, Heather Hernandez <

Post by Heather Hernandez
Hi, Kelly--
Our records in Koha actually have different values in the 001 field based
on the age of the record. When I first thought about this, I pretty much
clutched my pearls and took to my fainting couch, thinking things like,
"But the 001 should be our consistent, primary database key! Oh my stars
and garters!!!"
Then after applying a cool cloth to my forehead I got to thinking about how
we used the 001 and what data was there: based on the age of the record,
it's either an old catalog record number (which I want to keep in the
record) or the OCLC number (which I definitely want to keep in the
record). How do I use it? Well, to just store those numbers, and if I
want to overlay the existing Koha record with a record that I'm exporting
from the OCLC Connexion Client, I include a 999 $c with the Koha record
number in that field in the OCLC record. I'm currently having some trouble
with links into our catalog from our holdings in WorldCat.org, but that
doesn't seem related--we're trying to use ISBNs or title data for that.
So perhaps it might be helpful to ask how you would be using the 001 field
and the 999 $c field, and how it's used among the other libraries. I don't
have a lot of experience with using MarcEdit and such since ByWater
supports our Koha catalog & I happily rely on them for things like this,
but I think it would be entirely possible to export your records to
MarcEdit, copy record numbers that you're not using to another field (e.g.,
035) and copy the Koha biblionumbers to the 001, then reimport/replace the
records. But that sounds kind of drastic to me. I also clutch my pearls
at the thought of data being duplicated in a record, e.g., in the 999 $c as
well as the 001, but I can't think of any harm that it would do in *my*
setting--perhaps others could? Your system would also need some sort of
configuring for ongoing cataloging, to see that the biblionumber gets
copied into the 001.
But if it were me, I'd think long and hard about if this is really
necessary. For us, it's been absolutely fine to have the Koha
biblionumbers in the 999 $c and an assortment of types of numbers in the
001--I've gotten up off my fainting couch, adjusted my pearls, and realized
that it works!:) I hope that others will chime in, because I would be very
interested to know about other options and possible consequences that might
face us in the future since we do have such a variety of numbers in our 001
fields.
I hope this helps! Best,
h2
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Heather Hernandez
Technical Services Librarian
San Francisco Maritime National Historical Park Research Center
2 Marina Blvd., Bldg. E, 3rd floor, San Francisco, CA 94123-1284
Library catalog: http://keys.bywatersolutions.com/
_______________________________________________
Koha mailing list http://koha-community.org
https://lists.katipo.co.nz/mailman/listinfo/koha

--
Joy Nelson
Vice President of Implementations

ByWater Solutions <http://bywatersolutions.com>
Support and Consulting for Open Source Software
Phone/Fax [phone]
What is Koha? <http://bywatersolutions.com/what-is-koha/>
_______________________________________________
Koha mailing list http://koha-community.org
***@lists.katipo.co.nz
https://lists.

[Kelly Drake]

Hi Everyone!

Thank you for all the input.

Joy - we'll be talking!

Heather - I do hope your pearls have weathered this storm

Heather and Paul A - Does an ex-maritime librarian count? I used to work in
the library at Mystic Seaport!

Kelly

Post by Joy Nelson
Hi Kelly and Heather!
In many other ILS systems the 001 was/is indeed a field that contained a
unique value (control number). I still work with data from time to time
that has a unique id in the 001. Heather is right that in Koha the unique
id is stored in the 999$c, so you can use the 001 field for whatever you
like. Some sites put the oclc number in the 001, others just leave it
blank, or just take what comes when cataloging via z3950 (clutch your
pearls on that. :D )
Kelly, I have set up some sites to automatically copy the biblionumber to
the 001 tag. Yes, it duplicates the data from the 999c to the 001, but it
is done programmatically at night so no upkeep would be needed by
cataloging staff. As long as all your libraries are okay with this
configuration and don't plan to use the 001 for anything else, let us know
at ByWater and we can set this up for you.
joy
On Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 10:01 AM, Heather Hernandez <

Post by Heather Hernandez
Hi, Kelly--
Our records in Koha actually have different values in the 001 field based
on the age of the record. When I first thought about this, I pretty much
clutched my pearls and took to my fainting couch, thinking things like,
"But the 001 should be our consistent, primary database key! Oh my stars
and garters!!!"
Then after applying a cool cloth to my forehead I got to thinking about how
we used the 001 and what data was there: based on the age of the record,
it's either an old catalog record number (which I want to keep in the
record) or the OCLC number (which I definitely want to keep in the
record). How do I use it? Well, to just store those numbers, and if I
want to overlay the existing Koha record with a record that I'm exporting
from the OCLC Connexion Client, I include a 999 $c with the Koha record
number in that field in the OCLC record. I'm currently having some trouble
with links into our catalog from our holdings in WorldCat.org, but that
doesn't seem related--we're trying to use ISBNs or title data for that.
So perhaps it might be helpful to ask how you would be using the 001 field
and the 999 $c field, and how it's used among the other libraries. I don't
have a lot of experience with using MarcEdit and such since ByWater
supports our Koha catalog & I happily rely on them for things like this,
but I think it would be entirely possible to export your records to
MarcEdit, copy record numbers that you're not using to another field (e.g.,
035) and copy the Koha biblionumbers to the 001, then reimport/replace the
records. But that sounds kind of drastic to me. I also clutch my pearls
at the thought of data being duplicated in a record, e.g., in the 999 $c as
well as the 001, but I can't think of any harm that it would do in *my*
setting--perhaps others could? Your system would also need some sort of
configuring for ongoing cataloging, to see that the biblionumber gets
copied into the 001.
But if it were me, I'd think long and hard about if this is really
necessary. For us, it's been absolutely fine to have the Koha
biblionumbers in the 999 $c and an assortment of types of numbers in the
001--I've gotten up off my fainting couch, adjusted my pearls, and realized
that it works!:) I hope that others will chime in, because I would be very
interested to know about other options and possible consequences that might
face us in the future since we do have such a variety of numbers in our 001
fields.
I hope this helps! Best,
h2
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Heather Hernandez
Technical Services Librarian
San Francisco Maritime National Historical Park Research Center
2 Marina Blvd., Bldg. E, 3rd floor
<https://maps.google.com/?q=2+Marina+Blvd.,+Bldg.+E,+3rd+floor&entry=gmail&source=g>,
San Francisco, CA 94123-1284
Library catalog: http://keys.bywatersolutions.com/
_______________________________________________
Koha mailing list http://koha-community.org
https://lists.katipo.co.nz/mailman/listinfo/koha

--
Joy Nelson
Vice President of Implementations
ByWater Solutions <http://bywatersolutions.com>
Support and Consulting for Open Source Software
Phone/Fax [phone]
What is Koha? <http://bywatersolutions.com/what-is-koha/>

[Heather Hernandez]

Hi, Kelly!!

I *thought* your name was familiar!! How nice to be in touch!! Once a
maritime library worker, always a maritime library worker?? (There's a
joke in there about salt, but I need more coffee to make it!)

Glad you're in touch with Joy--she has simply *mad* MARC record skillz!!

Luckily, I have remarkably resilient pearls!:):)

Ever best to all,
h2
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Heather Hernandez
Technical Services Librarian
San Francisco Maritime National Historical Park Research Center
2 Marina Blvd., Bldg. E, 3rd floor, San Francisco, CA 94123-1284
415-561-7032, ***@nps.gov
Library catalog: http://keys.bywatersolutions.com/
_______________________________________________
Koha mailing list http://koha-community.org
***@lists.katipo.co.nz
https://lists.katipo.co.nz/mailma

[Barton Chittenden]

I'm pretty sure that I've seen Heather up-shift, down-shift and
double-clutch her pearls, which I suspect individually milled from high
carbon steel and inspected daily with a micrometer for wear. ;-)

On Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 5:38 PM, Heather Hernandez <

Post by Heather Hernandez
Hi, Kelly!!
I *thought* your name was familiar!! How nice to be in touch!! Once a
maritime library worker, always a maritime library worker?? (There's a
joke in there about salt, but I need more coffee to make it!)
Glad you're in touch with Joy--she has simply *mad* MARC record skillz!!
Luckily, I have remarkably resilient pearls!:):)
Ever best to all,
h2
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Heather Hernandez
Technical Services Librarian
San Francisco Maritime National Historical Park Research Center
2 Marina Blvd., Bldg. E, 3rd floor, San Francisco, CA 94123-1284
Library catalog: http://keys.bywatersolutions.com/
_______________________________________________
Koha mailing list http://koha-community.org
https://lists.katipo.co.nz/mailman/listinfo/koha

[Heather Hernandez]

Oh, man, this message cracked me up SO much, Barton! I'm dearly hoping
that there will be a session at KohaCon on Open Source, Community Supported
Pearl Clutching: Tips, Techniques, and Tackling Your Own Restringing.

(Yes--I'm a fan of the British _Top Gear_ and NPR's CarTalk!!)

Best to all,
h2
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Heather Hernandez
Technical Services Librarian
San Francisco Maritime National Historical Park Research Center
2 Marina Blvd., Bldg. E, 3rd floor, San Francisco, CA 94123-1284
415-561-7032, ***@nps.gov
Library catalog: http://keys.bywatersolutions.co
<http://keys.bywatersolutions.com/>
m
_______________________________________________
Koha mailing list http://koha-community.org
***@lists.katipo.co.nz
https:

[Paul A]

On 2018-07-26 05:34 PM, Kelly Drake wrote:
[snip]

Post by Kelly Drake
Heather and Paul A - Does an ex-maritime librarian count? I used to work in
the library at Mystic Seaport!

Yup... Paul O'P is an old friend of mine.

Best -- Paul (another one.)

Post by Kelly Drake
Kelly

Post by Joy Nelson
Hi Kelly and Heather!
In many other ILS systems the 001 was/is indeed a field that contained a
unique value (control number). I still work with data from time to time
that has a unique id in the 001. Heather is right that in Koha the unique
id is stored in the 999$c, so you can use the 001 field for whatever you
like. Some sites put the oclc number in the 001, others just leave it
blank, or just take what comes when cataloging via z3950 (clutch your
pearls on that. :D )
Kelly, I have set up some sites to automatically copy the biblionumber to
the 001 tag. Yes, it duplicates the data from the 999c to the 001, but it
is done programmatically at night so no upkeep would be needed by
cataloging staff. As long as all your libraries are okay with this
configuration and don't plan to use the 001 for anything else, let us know
at ByWater and we can set this up for you.
joy
On Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 10:01 AM, Heather Hernandez <

Post by Heather Hernandez
Hi, Kelly--
Our records in Koha actually have different values in the 001 field based
on the age of the record. When I first thought about this, I pretty much
clutched my pearls and took to my fainting couch, thinking things like,
"But the 001 should be our consistent, primary database key! Oh my stars
and garters!!!"
Then after applying a cool cloth to my forehead I got to thinking about how
we used the 001 and what data was there: based on the age of the record,
it's either an old catalog record number (which I want to keep in the
record) or the OCLC number (which I definitely want to keep in the
record). How do I use it? Well, to just store those numbers, and if I
want to overlay the existing Koha record with a record that I'm exporting
from the OCLC Connexion Client, I include a 999 $c with the Koha record
number in that field in the OCLC record. I'm currently having some trouble
with links into our catalog from our holdings in WorldCat.org, but that
doesn't seem related--we're trying to use ISBNs or title data for that.
So perhaps it might be helpful to ask how you would be using the 001 field
and the 999 $c field, and how it's used among the other libraries. I don't
have a lot of experience with using MarcEdit and such since ByWater
supports our Koha catalog & I happily rely on them for things like this,
but I think it would be entirely possible to export your records to
MarcEdit, copy record numbers that you're not using to another field (e.g.,
035) and copy the Koha biblionumbers to the 001, then reimport/replace the
records. But that sounds kind of drastic to me. I also clutch my pearls
at the thought of data being duplicated in a record, e.g., in the 999 $c as
well as the 001, but I can't think of any harm that it would do in *my*
setting--perhaps others could? Your system would also need some sort of
configuring for ongoing cataloging, to see that the biblionumber gets
copied into the 001.
But if it were me, I'd think long and hard about if this is really
necessary. For us, it's been absolutely fine to have the Koha
biblionumbers in the 999 $c and an assortment of types of numbers in the
001--I've gotten up off my fainting couch, adjusted my pearls, and realized
that it works!:) I hope that others will chime in, because I would be very
interested to know about other options and possible consequences that might
face us in the future since we do have such a variety of numbers in our 001
fields.
I hope this helps! Best,
h2
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Heather Hernandez
Technical Services Librarian
San Francisco Maritime National Historical Park Research Center
2 Marina Blvd., Bldg. E, 3rd floor
<https://maps.google.com/?q=2+Marina+Blvd.,+Bldg.+E,+3rd+floor&entry=gmail&source=g>,
San Francisco, CA 94123-1284
Library catalog: http://keys.bywatersolutions.com/
_______________________________________________
Koha mailing list http://koha-community.org
https://lists.katipo.co.nz/mailman/listinfo/koha

--
Joy Nelson
Vice President of Implementations
ByWater Solutions <http://bywatersolutions.com>
Support and Consulting for Open Source Software
Phone/Fax [phone]
What is Koha? <http://bywatersolutions.com/what-is-koha/>

_______________________________________________
Koha mailing list http://koha-community.org
***@lists.katipo.co.nz
https://lists.k

[Heather Hernandez]

What a small world it is, Paul!! And such a friendly one!

Best,
h2
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Heather Hernandez
Technical Services Librarian
San Francisco Maritime National Historical Park Research Center
2 Marina Blvd., Bldg. E, 3rd floor, San Francisco, CA 94123-1284
415-561-7032, ***@nps.gov
Library catalog: http://keys.bywatersolutions.com/