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

[Rebecca Belford]

Thanks, David and Heather,

I misunderstood going in to my meeting earlier today that 5.3 was not yet
out, and our systems librarian had the same March timeline Heather notes. I
was happy to hear we will be updating much more regularly than we have
been, so we'll have fixes applied more often. That relieves my concerns.

Best,
Rebecca

Rebecca Belford
Technical Services Librarian
Oberlin Conservatory Library
77 West College St., Oberlin, OH 44074
rbelford at oberlin.edu



On Wed, Dec 16, 2020 at 3:54 PM Heather G. Fisher via Imug-l <
imug-l at lists.osu.edu> wrote:

> Hi David –
>
>
>
> 5.3 is still in development. It looks like III is aiming for a rollout in
> March 2021.
>
>
>
> Heather
>
>
>
> *From:* Imug-l <imug-l-bounces+hgfisher=svsu.edu at lists.osu.edu> *On
> Behalf Of *David Prochazka via Imug-l
> *Sent:* Wednesday, December 16, 2020 3:50 PM
> *To:* imug-l at lists.osu.edu; Rebecca Belford <rbelford at oberlin.edu>
> *Subject:* Re: [IMUG-L] Sierra 5.2, 5.3 known issue $i in Automated
> Authority Control Processing
>
>
>
> 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 $i for display
> purposes.
>
>
>
> I’m not in the loop enough to know what sorts of issues are popping up
> with version 5.3 to know if it’s worth holding out or not.
>
>
>
> Good luck,
>
> David—
>
>
>
> David Procházka | Music/Special Materials Cataloger | The University of
> Akron | University Libraries | Bierce 261C | Akron, Ohio  44325-1712 |
> 330-972-6260 | davidp at uakron.edu |
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://works.bepress.com/david-prochazka/__;!!KGKeukY!ifYk9G3A-L1WXjEiuVi1JL4DYzp5vqsAi_h3g-S4azxAHKi9Sl_yM6uXnggIHl5Mdyo$ 
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https*3A*2F*2Furldefense.com*2Fv3*2F__https*3A*2F*2Fworks.bepress.com*2Fdavid-prochazka*2F__*3B!!KGKeukY!kbZgY_Dg3WOx4kCLk5waAfx-CV4gotTxHhu0wNOEjUJDLcOyFGD08LVFEl-YsIqf9bA*24&data=04*7C01*7Chgfisher*40svsu.edu*7Cbad11dbacab247c881a108d8a204248a*7C550f45ff3e8342a197d970ad8935b0c5*7C0*7C0*7C637437485971236222*7CUnknown*7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0*3D*7C1000&sdata=8qRiRquOg2eNDFRLEZlRhoZdlezHQrUPL41DGjdJ3jk*3D&reserved=0__;JSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJQ!!KGKeukY!nePOvCZymuYXOLqWaGazobA_NUD0-szt_6p-uu4VaTiFWV-rzCiOe0wICm9oQwtSI2I$>
> | 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
> _______________________________________________
> Imug-l mailing list
> Imug-l at lists.osu.edu
> https://lists.osu.edu/mailman/listinfo/imug-l
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osu.edu/pipermail/imug-l/attachments/20201216/8f7703d5/attachment.html>