Oh you really do mean complete like "complete publication run"?  Very 
few of our journal holdings are "complete" in that sense, they are 
definitely in the minority.  We start getting something after issue 1, 
or stop getting it before the last issue. Or stop and then start again.

Is this really unusual?

If all you've figured out is the "complete publication run" of a 
journal, and are assuming your library holds it... wait, how is this 
something you need for any actual use case?

My use case is trying to figure out IF we have a particular 
volume/issue, and ideally,  if so, what shelf is it located on.  If I'm 
just going to deal with journals we have the complete publication 
history of, I don't have a problem anymore, because the answer will 
always be "yes", that's a very simple algorithm, "print yes", heh.  So, 
yes, if you assume only holdings of complete publication histories, the 
problem does get very easy.

Incidentally, if anyone is looking for a schema and transmission format 
for actual _structured_ holdings information, that's flexible enough for 
idiosyncratic publication histories and holdings, but still structured 
enough to actually be machine-actionable... I still can't recommend Onix 
Serial Holdings highly enough!   I don't think it gets much use, 
probably because most of our systems simply don't _have_ this structured 
information, most of our staff interfaces don't provide reasonably 
efficient interfaces for entering, etc. But if you can get the other 
pieces and just need a schema and representation format, Onix Serial 
Holdings is nice!

Jonathan

Kyle Banerjee wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 10:13 AM, Jonathan Rochkind <[log in to unmask]>wrote:
>
>   
>> I'm not sure what you mean by "complete" holdings? The library holds the
>> entire run of the journal from the first issue printed to the last/current?
>> Or just holdings that dont' include "missing" statements?
>>
>>     
>
> Obviously, there has to  some sort of holdings statement -- I'm presuming
> that something reasonably accurate is available. If there is no summary
> holdings statement, items aren't inventoried, but holdings are believed to
> be incomplete, there's not much to work with.
>
> As far as retrospectively getting data up to scratch in the case of
>  hopeless situations, there are paths that make sense. For instance,
> retrospectively inventorying serials may be insane. However, from circ and
> ILL data, you should know which titles are actually consulted the most. Get
> those ones in shape first and work backwards.
>
> In a major academic library, it may be the case that some titles are *never*
> handled, but that doesn't cause problems if no one wants them. For low use
> resources, it can make more sense to just handle things manually.
>
> Perhaps other institutions have more easily parseable holdings data (or even
>   
>> holdings data stored in structured form in the ILS) than mine.  For mine,
>> even holdings that don't include "missing" are not feasibly reliably
>> parseable, I've tried.
>>
>>     
>
> Note that you can get structured holdings data from sources other than the
> library catalog -- if you know what's missing.
>
> Sounds like your situation is particularly challenging. But there are gains
> worth chasing. Service issues aside, problems like these raise existential
> questions.
>
> If we do an inadequate job of providing access, patrons will just turn to
> subscription databases and no one will even care about what we do or even if
> we're still around. Most major academic libraries never got their entire
> card collection in the online catalog. Patrons don't use that stuff anymore,
> and almost no one cares (even among librarians). It would be a mistake to
> think this can't happen again.
>
> kyle
>
>