(Created page with " The Committee identified the following recommendations: * Libraries in FOLIO may edit shared MARC/Instance records; * Actual (character-for-character) duplicate fields may be removed without oversight; * Fields that are essentially duplicates (same data; different format) may be edited or removed, using RDA standards; * When there is some question whether to retain or delete a field from a MARC record, the field should be retained, pending further investigation; * The...") |
(No difference)
|
Latest revision as of 18:34, 21 January 2025
The Committee identified the following recommendations:
- Libraries in FOLIO may edit shared MARC/Instance records;
- Actual (character-for-character) duplicate fields may be removed without oversight;
- Fields that are essentially duplicates (same data; different format) may be edited or removed, using RDA standards;
- When there is some question whether to retain or delete a field from a MARC record, the field should be retained, pending further investigation;
- The 245 $h (GMD), where it exists in MARC records, should be retained, pending further development of Open RS (catalogers need not add a 245 $h where it is not already present);
- Local notes (590s etc.) should be stored in a Holdings and/or Item record, rather than a shared MARC/Instance record;
- Local subject headings (690s etc.) should be retained in the MARC record;
- Libraries that have holdings attached to the same MARC record should communicate with each other when considering edits to the record.
