Let me add LCCN on manual entry

when manually entering, LCCN is greyed out. Make this not so.

I agree. I would like this so that the LC subjects can be added to my TinyCat pages.

>2 Ambassador_College: They will not be added by having LCCN. They will be added if you use LC as a source when entering the book. Or some other source that comes with subject headings, not amazon.

You can see all the data that will be imported by clicking on question mark to the right of each search result, so you can check whether it comes with subjects or not.

Can we also ungrey, at minimum, OCLC number? (And can we make them editable on existing books?) Even a lot of library sources don't provide OCLC number and it's nice to have.

It doesn't make sense to make either of these fields editable. The numbers (LCCN and OCLC) are record numbers, not book numbers. They are specific to the LoC catalog and the OCLC database. Yes, other libraries have OCLC numbers and/or LCCN numbers b/c they copy catalog instead of original catalog. If your record didn't come from LoC or OCLC (as in they are not the originating source of the record) you shouldn't be randomly assigning the LCCN or OCLC to a record. Especially if LT uses that metadata in real life for libraries via LTFL.

I'm not really sure why this is an argument against having them? LT *also* has those numbers because they copy data from other catalogs. (And we can't add directly from Worldcat, unless I've missed something big, so you seem to imply LT shouldn't have OCLC numbers at all, I guess?) Both those numbers are widely used to connect bibliographic records between catalogs, OCLC in particular is used in ILL systems, and they're also useful for that in LT.

It makes sense to me that we don't want those fields cluttered up with invalid numbers or people's personal cataloging systems or whatever - I assume that's why they were greyed out in the first place. But if we are going to be able to manually enter LCCN I would like OCLC too, please - I feel like any argument either way for one should apply to the other.

I have a lot of books printed with an LC number, but that pre-date the ISBN system. The LC number is literally all I've got, for that subset of books.

brycenesbitt, I have run into that problem as well, and would like to have the ability to update the LCCN and OCLC data fields, too.

However, I have some suggestions that might help. The LoC, some years ago, changed the format for the LCCN from yy-12345 to yy-123456. If you go to Add Books, set your primary search to LoC, then enter the LCCN without the dash. However, if it is an old LCCN, in the yy-12345 format, replace the dash with a zero. So, search on yy012345. If it's a newer number, you would use yy123456.

That said, I have noticed that the link between LT and LoC and get glitchy on rare occasions. If that doesn't work, then go to the LoC website and try using advanced search, enter the LCCN, in the same format without the dash, and set the field to "LC Control No/LCCN (K010)" or "LCCN-ISBN-ISSN (KNUM)", and see what you get. If you get a correct response, use the call number, or any other unique identifier and go back to LT and try and search again.

As long as you can find the book on LT, through Add Books, using LoC as the primary search database, then the LCCN field should populate.

Here's my two cents on the argument for opening the LCCN and OCLC fields, or not. I agree that data field integrity is important (I have done some database design). And, I further agree that users shouldn't use them for their own codes. There are plenty of other fields for that. One solution to that problem is for LT to include data integrity rules, like only permitting certain formats (xx-nnnnnn), and only certain types of characters (digits 0-9 and "-" only), etc.

As for the argument for opening the fields, I have found, rarely, like brycenesbitt, that the LCCN search doesn't always work. I have found ways to deal with that (see my post to brycenesbitt), but occasionally, I still can't get LT to properly pull up the correct record for a given (usually older) LCCN, even though a search on LoC, confirms the record exists. However, I can pull a record if I go to Overcat, or as a last resort, Amazon, the LCCN and/or OCLC number does not populate, even though I have confirmed it's existence.

I would like to upvote this feature request. Being able to enter an LCCN number is important for those of us with libraries of old books.

>10 zief0002:

If you want to use the LCCN, select Library of Congress as your data source. Then you can search for records by entering the number. I have seen times where the wrong book is found.

You could also use OverCat as a data source. These are a catalog of library imports for work records made bt LT members in the past.

James