Batch Importer (Bib/Acq) (UXPROD-47)

[UXPROD-4442] Data Import MARC Modification Mapping for MARC Fixed Fields, LDR, 001 Created: 24/Jan/23  Updated: 28/Dec/23

Status: Open
Project: UX Product
Components: None
Affects versions: None
Fix versions: TBD
Parent: Batch Importer (Bib/Acq)

Type: New Feature Priority: TBD
Reporter: Jennifer Eustis Assignee: Ryan Taylor
Resolution: Unresolved Votes: 0
Labels: data-import, epam-folijet
Remaining Estimate: Not Specified
Time Spent: Not Specified
Original estimate: Not Specified

Attachments: File 73547841 all holdings.mrc     File marcBibSrs_008_pos28.mrc     File singleRecordImportFromOCLC.mrc    
Issue links:
Defines
defines UXPROD-47 Batch Importer (Bib/Acq) Analysis Complete
Release: Not Scheduled
Epic Link: Batch Importer (Bib/Acq)
Development Team: Folijet
PO Rank: 0

 Description   

Purpose: Enhance the current modifications present for the MARC Bibliographic Modifications field mapping profile

User story statement(s):

As a user, I need to make modifications to the MARC leader, fixed fields, 001, and 003 on an incoming marc bibliographic file.
I want the incoming file to have these modifications in the MARC leader, fixed fields, 001, or 003. See scenarios.

 

Scenarios:

  1. Scenario:
    • Single record import from OCLC
    • When a record is imported from OCLC, there are a number of unwanted fields or information. One use case is the prefix in the 001 in the record coming from OCLC. Using a marc modification action, the field mapping will remove the prefix (ocn, on, ocm) from the 001.
    • Then the single record that is imported will have an 035 that is generated from the 001 without the prefix and the 003.
  2. Scenario:
    • Incoming records with 008 position 23 of 's'
    • When an electronic record is imported, sometimes the form of the item (008, pos 23) is 's' rather than 'o'. 's' is the older code. The marc modification for this bibliographic record will ensure that this position is 's'.
    • Then the record that is updated will have the correct code in the 008.
  3. Scenario:
    • Incoming records with no 003
    • When an incoming record has no 003, sometimes the library wants to add one (to be turned into an 035 with the incoming 001, or to exist on the SRS MARC?)
    • Then ...
  4. Scenario
    • Incoming record with local 001/003 that will be changed into an 035
    • Be able to select 1) what field the 001 is put into and 2) whether the 003 prefix is added to it and 3) whether leading zeroes are stripped or not. Requested by NLA June 2023. See attached MARC file 73547841 all holdings.mrc. Instead of 035  $a(AuCNLKIN)000073547841, would prefer 019 $a73547841


 Comments   
Comment by Ann-Marie Breaux (Inactive) [ 25/Jan/23 ]

Hi Jennifer Eustis Would it be possible to attach a small file of MARC records with examples of the fields/data that are described in the scenarios? Thank you!

Comment by Jennifer Eustis [ 25/Jan/23 ]

Definitely Ann-Marie Breaux . Let me gather them from the 5C and I'll post them here.

 

Comment by Jennifer Eustis [ 25/Jan/23 ]

Scenario to modify fixed field 008

marcBibSrs_008_pos28.mrc

On Update: This file is for the use case of removing the code 's' in the 008 position 28. The scenario is a round trip. Here, using marc modifications would eliminate a step in the cleanup process. You export the record, then re-import it with a job that modifies the incoming marc srs to remove that 's'.

On Create: This cleanup is necessary when we import our new JSTOR purchased ebooks which often have a 's' in that 008 pos. 28.

Comment by Jennifer Eustis [ 25/Jan/23 ]

Scenario for Single Record Import and modifying the 001

singleRecordImportFromOCLC.mrc

On Update and Create: For files coming from OCLC, we want to remove the prefix from the 001 so that when the 035 is generated from the 001 and 003, there is no prefix. This is what it would look like for this file.

Incoming file has:

=001  ocn608375358
=003  OCoLC

Result after modification:

=001  608375358
=003  OCoLC

The rest of the modifications would be to remove unwanted fields such as the 029, 583s, etc.

Comment by Jennifer Eustis [ 12/Apr/23 ]

From Cornell:

The use case is to add an 003 when it is missing from incoming records using MARC modifications. This can't be done currently.

Comment by Ann-Marie Breaux (Inactive) [ 12/Apr/23 ]

Hi Jennifer Eustis (from Cornell?)

Would you be adding the 003 to the incoming record so that
1) it can be harvested along with the existing 001 and turned into an 035?
or
2) so that it can be added to the SRS MARC Bib as a stand-alone 003 (which presumably is aligned with the FOLIO HRID in the 001 field)

Comment by Jennifer Eustis [ 12/Apr/23 ]

Ann-Marie Breaux My understanding is that the 003 would be added to the incoming record that that it can be harvested along with the existing 001 to create the 035. Jenn Colt Are there other use cases from Cornell in regards adding the 003 via marc modifications?

Comment by Christie Thomas [ 12/Apr/23 ]

At Chicago we would want the 003 to be our local code to qualify the 001 with the instance hrid, thus we would want to always add an ICU to the 003 when it is not present and to persist after the update. 

 

In a previous system this sort of management was a system wide parameter. This could also be handled as a setting for all record management activities. 

Comment by Jennifer Eustis [ 30/Jun/23 ]

One of the reasons to be able to manipulate the 001 and 003 here at the 5 Colleges is because of how FOLIO currently generates an 035 from the 001 and 003. I would definitely support scenario 4 if it also includes the ability to strip not just leading zeros but also letters.

Comment by Jenn Colt [ 11/Jul/23 ]

When using an OCLC match profile, if the 001 has an OCLC prefix and the OCLC number in the 035 does not have a prefix, FOLIO rejects the matching because of there being two "different" OCLC numbers in the incoming record. Being able to remove the prefix from the 001 with a MARC modification would fix this situation.

Comment by Ann-Marie Breaux (Inactive) [ 28/Jul/23 ]

Hi Jenn Colt What happens if you try a numerics-only match for the incoming and existing OCLC numbers?

Comment by Jenn Colt [ 28/Jul/23 ]

I did, it didn't seem to work either.

Comment by Ann-Marie Breaux (Inactive) [ 18/Aug/23 ]

Moved from MODDATAIMP project to UXPROD project, since this is a feature

Generated at Fri Feb 09 00:39:58 UTC 2024 using Jira 1001.0.0-SNAPSHOT#100246-sha1:7a5c50119eb0633d306e14180817ddef5e80c75d.