Exchange with Andrew Wilson about Holding Location.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2002 16:28:01 -0400 (EDT)
From: Rebecca S. Guenther <[log in to unmask]>
To: Andrew Wilson <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Libraries Application Profile

Andrew:

Thanks for making me aware of this. I'm not sure that it is really the
same kind of data as Availability, although it is related. I see "holding
location" more as the repository where the resource is held. It may or may
not be available from that repository (primarily depending upon things
like access rights). It is the entity responsible for housing and
maintaining it. I think this is different from availability in that
availability is where you can obtain a copy, and it would have subelements
such as cost, email, etc.

I can't help but see this in terms of the data we include in records in
libraries. We have a field 037 in MARC 21 called Source of Acquisition
which is pretty much what you have in Availability and includes many of
the subelements. It is used for purchasing the item. The Holding Location
in DC-Lib, however, is equivalent to MARC field 852, which is where the
resource is held, not where it is acquired. It may be acquired from that
institution in terms of using it, but not in terms of actually owning or
purchasing it. So I see them as distinct. The description of MARC field
852 is at:
http://lcweb.loc.gov/marc/bibliographic/ecbdhold.html#mrcb852
and 037:
http://lcweb.loc.gov/marc/bibliographic/ecbdnumb.html#mrcb037

I will bring this up to the Usage Board in the discussion. It is
definitely related, but not the same.

Thanks for the information.

Rebecca

On Tue, 30 Apr 2002, Andrew Wilson wrote:

> Hi Rebecca
>
> I have just been looking at the revised DC-Libraries Application Profile but
> admit to not having followed the earlier discussion about it. This point
> might already have been made but I did want to make it myself, also.
>
> Your proposed Holdings Location element, despite the name (which seems to me
> to be very library-centric), is almost exactly the same as the Availability
> element in AGLS. Both are intended for providing information about how a
> physical resource could be obtained, but ours has been in existence for 5
> years and is widely deployed in AGLS metadata records in Australia (see
> http://www.naa.gov.au/recordkeeping/gov_online/agls/user_manual/agls_metadat
> a_elements.html#s4217). Couldn't the Library AP include the Availability
> element from the AGLS namespace, instead of creating a new element that does
> exactly the same thing, even if your base semantics are slightly different?
>
> cheers
> Andrew
>
> Andrew Wilson
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> Assistant Director, Recordkeeping Standards and Policy
> National Archives of Australia
> email: [log in to unmask]
> Ph: +61 2 6212 3694
> Fax: +61 2 6212 3989
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>