/
Local Fields: 914 and 915

Local Fields: 914 and 915

Two new local fields have been defined for the Library's on-going OCLC data sync task. The data synchronization task integrates Princeton University Library's holdings in WorldCat to accurately reflect our collections and make them visible to our patrons, other libraries, and other users of the Web. The two new local fields will not affect our current cataloging workflow. Please do not change or remove these 2 fields in the records when you see them.

914 field

The 914 is used for the OCLC number captured from the OCLC reports after the data sync process is completed. It serves as a flag when records with a 914 are done with the data sync process and will be excluded for the next time the job is run. If a 916 is present in a record, it is a more current OCLC number than the 914. The 035 is the definitive OCLC number in a record. Here is one example of the 914 field in Alma:

914 ##  $$a (OCoLC)on1127965719 $$b OCoLC $$d 20221108 $$e unprocessed

Indicator and Subfield Information

Indicators

Both indicator positions are undefined; each contains a blank (#).

Subfield Codes

match – (holding was set, no metadata was added to the OCLC record)
replace – (entire OCLC record was replaced; only occurs on new records or records PUL originally contributed)
field transfer – (certain bibliographic fields are eligible for transfer, see https://help.oclc.org/Metadata_Services/WorldShare_Collection_Manager/Understand_record_processing/Data_sync_processing?sl=en#Transfer_[…]aphic_data for which fields are eligible)

915 field

The 915 field is used for reporting the validation errors identified by OCLC from the data sync job.  Certain validation errors will prevent Princeton records from being accepted by OCLC. Those records need to be fixed and resubmitted for data sync. 915 is indexed and searchable in Alma. The Data Quality Group is charged to fix the records. Once a record is fixed, the 915 fields will be removed. If you encounter a 915 when doing cataloging, there is no need to fix it. Leave the task to the Data Quality Group to work on. Here are some examples of the 915 field in Alma:

915 ##  $$a Validation Error $$b SEVERE $$c 1st $6 in 1st 245 has invalid linking data. $$d 20221108 $$e 1347186166      

915 ##  $$a Validation Error $$b CRITICAL $$c Invalid relationship - when $6 in 245 is present, then 880 must be present. $$d 20221108 $$e 1347186166

Indicator and Subfield Information

Indicators

Both indicator positions are undefined; each contains a blank (#).

Subfield Codes

See also