Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

035 is mislabelled #1723

Open
ahankinson opened this issue Mar 6, 2025 · 4 comments
Open

035 is mislabelled #1723

ahankinson opened this issue Mar 6, 2025 · 4 comments

Comments

@ahankinson
Copy link
Contributor

MARC21 calls 035 a "System Control Number": https://www.loc.gov/marc/bibliographic/bd035.html

However, Muscat calls it the (much more vague) "Local Number". Thus it can be confusing about what to put in this box (which should be limited to system numbers, and not local call numbers or other identifiers.)

For example, RISM series numbers should not be put in this box, but have been: https://muscat.rism.info/admin/sources/992004614/edit (You may need to check the modification history if it's been corrected.)

There are a lot of problem entries in this field, so cleaning it up would be a problem. Deciding whether to actually tackle the entries in this field can be a separate issue. Validation of this field (it should always start with an open parenthesis indicating the type of control number can also be part of that issue.

As a first step, though, can we re-label this field to match MARC21?

@jenniferward
Copy link
Contributor

I'd phrase it the opposite way: It's the right label, but maybe the wrong MARC field. We need a field for local numbers.

@ahankinson
Copy link
Contributor Author

A local number on a Print source doesn't make sense, though, right? What's it local to?

It makes sense if it's a local control number, since this would refer to a control number in an external system, but local call numbers don't belong in 035.

For MS, a local call number should probably go in the 852 somewhere, right?

And RISM numbers should go in 510.

@jenniferward
Copy link
Contributor

jenniferward commented Mar 6, 2025

The A/I numbers in 035 were put in 035 at the beginning of the A/I import (ca. 2015) but probably aren't relevant to 035 any more. It was "local to RISM" I guess you can say. 510 is the relevant field for that, but we'd have to cross-check before deleting.
If there are shelfmarks in MS 035 then that is a cataloger's error, yes.

@ahankinson
Copy link
Contributor Author

Here's a list of the top 100 values in 035, along with the number of times they occur.

        '45031XXXX',3980,
        '450322000',589,
        '450331000',302,
        '45031YYYY',235,
        '450310XXX',173,
        'ocn612779707',152,
        '(OCoLC)1265408787',148,
        '450310295',126,
        '(OCoLC)701794576',124,
        '(OCoLC)837502',122,
        '(OCoLC)ocn702033754',85,
        'Indexnr.: 311',75,
        '(OCoLC)52041997',68,
        'Indexnr.: 291',66,
        '(OCoLC)27412125',65,
        'Indexnr.: 292',55,
        '(OCoLC)608627272',50,
        '(OCoLC)702033750',50,
        'Indexnr.: 63',48,
        '450310XXXX',41,
        'Indexnr.: 290',39,
        '360',37,
        'Indexnr.: 73',36,
        '(OCoLC)ocn702033766',32,
        '450310565',32,
        'Indexnr.: 55',32,
        'ocm13506732',31,
        'Indexnr.: 294',29,
        '450310171',28,
        '450322678',28,
        'q00946',27,
        '(OCoLC)1343955644',26,
        '450322629',26,
        '351',25,
        '450322671',25,
        '4503311511',25,
        '4503311805',25,
        '450331692',25,
        '450331910',25,
        '(OCoLC)014684243',24,
        '(OCoLC)702033753',24,
        '(OCoLC)1413478184',23,
        '450310882',23,
        '450322628',22,
        '4503311683',21,
        '363',20,
        '450322740',20,
        '4503311708',20,
        'q01028',20,
        '359',19,
        '450310449',19,
        '450322499',19,
        'Indexnr.: 239',19,
        'Indexnr.: 293',19,
        '450322687',18,
        'Indexnr.: 295',18,
        '(OCoLC)69022856',17,
        '354',17,
        '450310494',17,
        '450322627',17,
        '450331958',17,
        '352',16,
        '356 K I',16,
        '361',16,
        '4503311168',16,
        '450331632',16,
        '346',15,
        '358',15,
        '450331762',15,
        '455047854',15,
        '450310346',14,
        '450310629',14,
        '450311070',14,
        '450311081',14,
        '450311133',14,
        '450322770',14,
        'Indexnr.: 47',14,
        'LL 2761 I,1',14,
        'ocn612753345',14,
        '(OCoLC)1346426469',13,
        '(OCoLC)22457668',13,
        '(OCoLC)24390414',13,
        '357 KI',13,
        '450310560',13,
        '450310588',13,
        '450310742',13,
        '450310961',13,
        '450311031',13,
        '450311087',13,
        '450322768',13,
        '4503311071',13,
        '4503311561',13,
        '4503311796',13,
        '450331594',13,
        '450331648',13,
        '450331649',13,
        '450331867',13,
        '450331948',13,
        'Indexnr.: 296',13,
        '(OCoLC)1450733775',12

Not sure what to do about them, but I think we don't need to decide that before we decide to change the label to match MARC21.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants