I think the 001 only has meaning within the current system in which the
MARC record is stored.  It's the local control number and on its own has no
meaning outside of that system.

Presumably your records also contain an 003 field, a control number
identifier, so that if another system were to ingest records exported from
yours, the 001 and 003 together would have the proper context.  The
ingesting system probably would move the 001/003 to a new 035 field, and
replace the 001 with their own local identifier.

So, your use of a UUID in 001 should be fine, as long as you provide an
003.  Other systems should move your UUID to 035 on ingest, and assign the
new record an 001 which has meaning within their own system.

Andy Kohler / UCLA Library IT
[log in to unmask]

On Thu, Dec 20, 2018 at 8:50 AM Sebastian Hammer <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:

> Hey folks,
>
> The FOLIO LSP uses UUIDs
> (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universally_unique_identifier) internally
> to uniquely identify all things, including bibliographic instances. When
> exchanging instance entities with other systems using MARC
> (bibliographic), we'd kind of like to use those UUIDs as our 001
> identifiers since they're the closest thing to a true system ID we have.
> But I wonder if anyone has tried this and experienced problems with MARC
> consumers croaking on something like
>
> 001 123e4567-e89b-12d3-a456-426655440000
>
> which is not your grandfather's identifier. The LOC MARC documentation
> is silent on the length of the 001 field but the MARCBreaker/maker
> software recommends staying within 12 characters... I can imagine if
> some systems wanted to stick the identifier in a fixed-with database
> table, hilarity might ensue.
>
> Any thoughts?
>
> --Sebastian
>