This is not related to CONSER, since it deals with a local libraries
holdings, not a shared description.
Bernhard Eversberg wrote:
> Stephens, Owen wrote:
>
>> This is true - but if only we recorded even summary holdings statements for print journals in a machine parsable format it would be a real step forward - we could then answer the same question for print holding as Link servers tend to for electronic holdings.
>>
>
> 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.
>
> B.Eversberg
>
>
Received on Thu Mar 19 2009 - 10:56:55 EDT