RE: [IUG] Pre-stamps in 949 field
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
We use pre-stamps in subfield f as well. Our vendor was able to
incorporate subfield f in the 949 tag without any problems.
949 b1 |fCD|aFICTION BROWN|i315510507368884|lbam|p15.99|s-|t1
San Antonio Public Library
katie dot enright at sanantonio dot gov
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
Is anyone out there using pre-stamps and putting the information into
949? What subfield do you use?
Diane L. Goodman
San Francisco Public Library
dgoodman at sfpl dot org