EBSCO’s approach to single records

A gentleman from EBSCO wrote to me in response to yesterday’s post. He asked about the subject headings, using Dance Magazine as an example; I’m not sure if the records differ because the DLC record for our print version has changed since it was downloaded years ago, or if it was a conscious decision by one of our staff members to change the heading.

He also responded to the idea I read about for linking from the catalog to the A-to-Z list.

This is something that we [at EBSCO] have discussed at length and we are looking at introducing as an option. If you think this is something you think you would be interested in exploring we can work with you on it. Basically, you would get one 856 field per record and that record would link to A-to-Z. To simplify maintenance on the library end, we would likely strip down the 856 to the bare minimum and exclude coverage and embargo information – that would be discovered on the A-to-Z list.

I asked a few follow-up questions. In the response, he pointed out that

By using the single 856 approach, maintenance becomes so much simpler when dealing with single records. You only need to be concerned with “adds” and “deletes” at the title level. If a new title is added to your A-to-Z collection, you want to either add an 856 to an existing print record or add a new record. If a title disappears from the A-to-Z collection, then you want to remove the 856 from your existing record or remove the entire record.

It also sounds like we would retain local cataloging if we want to, say, add a subject heading. It sounds as simple as adding the 856 field to our existing record (the one that already has the print/microfilm holdings).

It’s great to hear that EBSCO is exploring this option. I think it’s worth taking a look at this.

Posted in Cataloging, MARC, Single-record approach. Comments Off on EBSCO’s approach to single records
%d bloggers like this: