[IMUG-L] Sierra 5.2, 5.3 known issue $i in Automated Authority Control Processing

[David Prochazka]

Hi Rebecca—

I think your reading is correct.  We’re on version 5.1, and this problem does occur with $i … at least when updating an AP in an open bib record using CTRL-g.  For me, it’s not a deal breaker.  Having a consistent form of name for retrieval purposes trumps retaining the $i for display purposes.

I’m not in the loop enough to know what sorts of issues are popping up with version 5.3 to know if it’s worth holding out or not.

Good luck,
David—

David Procházka | Music/Special Materials Cataloger | The University of Akron | University Libraries | Bierce 261C | Akron, Ohio  44325-1712 | 330-972-6260 | davidp at uakron.edu<mailto:davidp at uakron.edu> | https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://works.bepress.com/david-prochazka/__;!!KGKeukY!kbZgY_Dg3WOx4kCLk5waAfx-CV4gotTxHhu0wNOEjUJDLcOyFGD08LVFEl-YsIqf9bA$  | he/him/his/etc.

From: Imug-l <imug-l-bounces at lists.osu.edu> On Behalf Of Rebecca Belford via Imug-l
Sent: Tuesday, December 15, 2020 4:36 PM
To
Subject: [IMUG-L] Sierra 5.2, 5.3 known issue $i in Automated Authority Control Processing

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of The University of Akron.
Greetings, Sierra users,

We are discussing our upcoming Sierra update from 4.1 and looking at moving to version 5.2 but are aware 5.3 is an option. I was looking through the known issues list for Sierra 2.0-5.2, and noted this one, which seems like an awful lot of information that could get lost from 7xx fields:

When Automatic Authority Control Processing runs on an added entry field that includes subfield i, the system updates the field and removes subfield i. SIERRA-33592, added 2020-12-08, reported in version 5.1, resolved in 5.3.

I am reading this as somewhat limited in scope, i.e., subfield $i is removed only when there's a "flip" generated by a match to a 4xx field in an AR (as opposed to any time the process simply encounters $i). Anything changes listed in the MCB get made via global update or ad hoc fixes from single records. However, the other branches do not have the staff to keep up with updates to the same extent and do rely on the automatic processing. It seems like this could introduce inconsistencies within a single record if some headings are flipped ($i removed) and some are not. Would this get noticed by non-catalogers? I don't know. It also seems disheartening to lose information like this.

I need to decide if anything about version 5.2 is sufficiently egregious to recommend we go straight to 5.3.

Any experience/thoughts most welcome.

Thank you,
Rebecca

Rebecca Belford
Technical Services Librarian
Oberlin Conservatory Library
77 West College St., Oberlin, OH 44074
rbelford at oberlin.edu
<mailto:rbelford at oberlin.edu>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osu.edu/pipermail/imug-l/attachments/20201216/c78e2673/attachment.html>