HOLDINGS RECORDS FOR MULTIPLE COPIES

POLICY:

The SCCC decided to continue creating separate holdings records for each multiple copy as an interim measure until the UH Library System has migrated to, and spent a few months using, Voyager version 2000. At that time, the issue will be revisited.

BACKGROUND:

The NISO/ANSI Z39.71 standard for holdings data says that any of the following approaches are legal:

1. a single holdings record for all items at an institution (even when at more than one location);
2. a single holdings record for all items at one location (including multiple copies);
3. a single holdings record for each copy of an item.

In Voyager, option 1 is not possible. If you put multiple locations in a single holdings record, not all locations will display in PAC. Options 2 and 3 are both possible in Voyager, but the Endeavor company encourages customers to use option 3. Endeavor feels that in a situation where a library owns multiple copies of one or more volumes in a multi-volume set, a separate holdings record is the only way for a patron to know that additional copies of these volumes are available. However, on Voyager-l, some Endeavor libraries have stated they have a policy of putting multiple copies in a single location on a single holdings record. It would seem either decision is feasible.

The two main issues bearing on the choice of how to handle multiple copies are cataloging workflow and PAC display. With respect to cataloging workflow, if a one copy per holdings record policy is followed, certain fixed field elements in the holdings record can be set to a default value and not worried about. If a multiple copies on one holdings record policy is followed, then the fixed field must be set to "separate" with a copy number of 1 when only one copy is attached, but to "composite" with a copy number equal to the number of multiple copies when additional copies are added. Since we have barely started cataloging in Voyager, the SCCC felt it was too early to make a decision based on cataloging workflow.

Likewise, with respect to PAC display, version 2000 of WebVoyage is known to be quite different from version 99.1. The SCCC felt it would be better to wait until we are on version 2000 before soliciting public services input on a policy.

Since a decision on the systemwide policy has been postponed, the SCCC felt that, for consistency's sake, libraries should continue adding multiple copies the same way they originally loaded in during the migration. In loading holdings data, Endeavor builds a separate holdings record for each multiple copy. Holdings for the UH Library System loaded in this way. All sites are therefore being asked to create a separate holdings record for each added copy until the policy issue is revisited after the move to version 2000.