• Article Type: General
• Product: Aleph
• Product Version: 20

Description:
We are working on our project to move from our 11 institutions with separate Aleph instances to a shared bib, multi-ADM configuration. In our merged Bib records database, we now realize there are merged bib records from the same institution, resulting in one bib records having not only multi-ADM's from different institutions, but also multi-ADMs with the same institution. We are using the SQL to find the duplicate ADM records, here's an example for one institution:

abctest-abc01 >> select substr (z103_rec_key_1,6,9) from z103 where substr (z103_rec_key_1,1,5) = 'ABC01' and Z103_LKR_TYPE = 'ADM' and Z103_LKR_LIBRARY = 'QRS50' group by substr (z103_rec_key_1,6,9) having count(*) > 1" ;

Is it okay for Aleph to have this configuration? Does it cause any problems in the future with the associated records, such as orders and loans? Should we be working on some sort of renumbering to merge the same institution's multi-ADM records into one? Or leave the records with same institution multi-ADM, even though we feel this might be confusing for library staff.

Resolution:
As noted in KB 4059: there should be only one ADM record per BIB in any one ADM library. In the case where there are two, only one displays.

Merging multiple ADM records into one requires that the Z30-ITEM-SEQUENCE, Z30H-ITEM-SEQUENCE, Z36-ITEM-SEQUENCE, Z36H-ITEM-SEQUENCE Z37-ITEM-SEQUENCE, Z37-SEQUENCE, Z37H-ITEM-SEQUENCE, Z37H-SEQUENCE, Z68-SEQUENCE, etc., be changed to prevent duplication. Though this might be preferable in the long run, it would be ... complicated.

The safest thing is to keep the two bib records in these cases.

I suspect that the institutions are aware of this situation, but you might want to give them a list of duplicates -- to see what they think about it.

• Article last edited: 10/8/2013