> Right, and that's what we've got in our national periodicals database.
> I was thinking CONSER might have the equivalent. At least, MARC
> holdings
> format does make provisions for that.
>
Does it? I've never seen MARC summary holdings recorded in a way that is easily machine parsable - but this may simply be my ignorance.
Locally at my institution we don't have anything approaching a machine parsable holdings for print - which is what I really need of course
Owen
Received on Thu Mar 19 2009 - 10:28:29 EDT