Difference between revisions of "MARC record review"

(category correction)
 
(One intermediate revision by one other user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
To review MARC records created by another cataloger, first make sure to save the record to your local save file. (Not the online save file, where records disappear if left alone for too long!) The reviewing cataloger should then set his or her status to 599, leaving any remarks on the record in 599 fields. (Minor, commonsense changes can be directly implemented by the reviewer.) This will allow the original cataloger to easily see which records have 599 comments that need action on.
+
To review [[MARC]] records created by another cataloger, first make sure to save the record to your local save file. (Not the online save file, where records disappear if left alone for too long!) The reviewing cataloger should then set his or her status to 599, leaving any remarks on the record in 599 fields. (Minor, commonsense changes can be directly implemented by the reviewer.) This will allow the original cataloger to easily see which records have 599 comments that need action on.
  
 
At this point, we still need a formal way to mark a reviewed record that doesn't need further work.
 
At this point, we still need a formal way to mark a reviewed record that doesn't need further work.

Latest revision as of 14:55, 31 August 2015

To review MARC records created by another cataloger, first make sure to save the record to your local save file. (Not the online save file, where records disappear if left alone for too long!) The reviewing cataloger should then set his or her status to 599, leaving any remarks on the record in 599 fields. (Minor, commonsense changes can be directly implemented by the reviewer.) This will allow the original cataloger to easily see which records have 599 comments that need action on.

At this point, we still need a formal way to mark a reviewed record that doesn't need further work.