RE: [IUG] Pre-stamps in 949 field

["Katie Enright" <Katie dot Enright at sanantonio dot gov>]

We use pre-stamps in subfield f as well.  Our vendor was able to
incorporate subfield f in the 949 tag without any problems.

For example:
949 b1 |fCD|aFICTION BROWN|i315510507368884|lbam|p15.99|s-|t1 


Katie Enright
Cataloging Manager
San Antonio Public Library
210-207-2660
katie dot enright at sanantonio dot gov
 

-----Original Message-----
From: Diane Goodman [mailto:dgoodman at sfpl dot org] 
Sent: Friday, December 15, 2006 3:56 PM
To: IUG INNOPAC List
Subject: [IUG] Pre-stamps in 949 field

We are getting ready to have our vendor supply item information in the
949 field of the bib. record instead of creating item records in
Millennium. Some of our call numbers have "pre-stamps," which are input
into a subfield "f" in front of subfield "a" in the call number. In the
User Manual, p. 101507, there is a subfield in 949 for "post-stamps,"
but there doesn't seem to be one for pre-stamps. We must have the
pre-stamps in a separate subfield for searching, indexing, and
statistical purposes

Is anyone out there using pre-stamps and putting the information into
949? What subfield do you use?

Diane L. Goodman
Catalog Manager
San Francisco Public Library
dgoodman at sfpl dot org