Skip to main content
ExLibris
  • Subscribe by RSS
  • Ex Libris Knowledge Center

    How can we tell if a title's z120's are correct?

    • Article Type: General
    • Product: Aleph
    • Product Version: 18.01

    Description:
    It seems that we have cases of incorrect z120's causing incorrect behavior in Title requests in the OPAC. The following "Anthropologist on Mars" is one example, but how can we tell, in general, if our z120's are correct?

    Our libraries own two different editions of "Anthropologist on Mars" (Vintage Books paperback (1996) and Knopf hardcover (1995).

    Vintage Books paperback:

    Reading doc : 004136128
    ...
    010 L $$z^^^94026733^
    020 L $$a0679756973 (pbk.) :$$c$13.00
    035 L $$a(OCoLC)ocm34359253
    ...
    24513 L $$aAn anthropologist on Mars :$$bseven paradoxical tales /$$cOliver Sacks.
    250 L $$a1st Vintage Books ed.
    260 L $$aNew York :$$bVintage Books,$$c1996, c1995.

    Knopf hardcover:

    Reading doc : 004394621
    ...
    010 L $$a^^^94026733^
    020 L $$a0679437851
    035 L $$a(OCoLC)ocm30810706
    ...
    24513 L $$aAn anthropologist on Mars :$$bseven paradoxical tales /$$cOliver Sacks.
    250 L $$a1st ed.
    260 L $$aNew York :$$bKnopf,$$c1995.

    As you can see below, there is a z120 sequence for each, with two different preferred records (one, paperback; one, hardcover).

    Each of these has, respectively, 12 and 9 other doc records linked to them in the z120:

    z120_rec_key
    doc_number ............004136128
    z120_rec_key_1
    preferred_doc_number ..004136128
    z120_update_flag ........C
    z120_same_no_lines ......012
    z120_same[01]
    same_doc_number ........003668775 yes <-- also in z120 below
    z120_same[02]
    same_doc_number ........003706972 yes <-- also in z120 below
    z120_same[03]
    same_doc_number ........003854263 no
    z120_same[04]
    same_doc_number ........003925148 no
    z120_same[05]
    same_doc_number ........003951406 no
    z120_same[06]
    same_doc_number ........004069563 no
    z120_same[07]
    same_doc_number ........004132080 yes
    z120_same[08]
    same_doc_number ........004136128 yes
    z120_same[09]
    same_doc_number ........004394621 yes <--- preferred doc in z120 below
    z120_same[10]
    same_doc_number ........004878633 no
    z120_same[11]
    same_doc_number ........005228388 no
    z120_same[12]
    same_doc_number ........005340168 no


    z120_rec_key
    doc_number ............003654379
    z120_rec_key_1
    preferred_doc_number ..004394621 <--- *non*-preferred doc in z120 above
    z120_update_flag ........C
    z120_same_no_lines ......009
    z120_same[01]
    same_doc_number ........003654379
    z120_same[02]
    same_doc_number ........003660956
    z120_same[03]
    same_doc_number ........003668775 <-- also in z120 above
    z120_same[04]
    same_doc_number ........003687342
    z120_same[05]
    same_doc_number ........003706972 <-- also in z120 above
    z120_same[06]
    same_doc_number ........003951406
    z120_same[07]
    same_doc_number ........004004571
    z120_same[08]
    same_doc_number ........004132080
    z120_same[09]
    same_doc_number ........004394621 <-- also in z120 above
    z120_same[10]

    All of the bib records for Anthropologist on Mars which we see in the OPAC are for the first title (the paperback, 004136128). (You can see this by clicking on "MARC".) I believe this happens because 004394621, though the preferred hardcover, is also a linked (as a non-preferred) to the 004136128 preferred paperback.

    Resolution:
    Every z120 record has a Z120-PREFERRED-DOC-NUMBER. All z120's for a particular title should have the *same* Z120-PREFERRED-DOC-NUMBER -- that includes the z120 of the preferred document itself.

    There are cases where bib#s 1234 and 5678 have bib# 9012 as their preferred doc number, but the z120 for 9012 has 3456 as *its* preferred doc number (-- and there are other doc records which have 3456 as their preferred doc).

    All z120's for a particular title should have the *same* Z120-PREFERRED-DOC-NUMBER.

    I suggest that you use util f/1/21/c to break equivalencies for these records and then util f/1/21/d to build equivalencies. You *should* get a consistent result, that is, all of the docs under one z120 or the other. (*Not* duplicated!) You can then consider if this is what you want {that is, the docs under two different z120's (one for the paperback and one for the hardcover) or all grouped under a single z120}. If you want to change this, it could be accomplished through table settings.

    If you find that util f/1/21/ straightens the problem out for these records, you will need to run p_manage_32 to straighten it out for others.

    If util f/1/21 does not straighten out the problem, it would seem that the union tables are not set up properly. They need to be corrected.


    • Article last edited: 10/8/2013
    //Feedback