<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.3020" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=484155322-11012007><FONT face=Arial
size=2>We just had Karen Smith Yoshimura of RLG and Glenn Patton of OCLC here at
BYU today for an RLG/OCLC merger update and learned a bit about their plans for
institutional records. It does appear that in the near future the OCLC database
will become somewhat RLIN-like. The current plan is to retain the master record
with institutional records attached to it. The institutional records will be
searchable on the same basis as the master records, i.e. just like the records
in the RLIN cluster. Institutional records will be optional (no library
will be required to have institutional records) and will begin with the
records of the current RLG members, whose records after the migration will also
continue to be added as institutional records (if they so desire--this will be
optional on an institution by institution basis). I gather that plans are not
yet in place for allowing current OCLC members who have not been RLG members to
get retrospective institutional records into the database (those of you who are
interested might start lobbying) but I gather as of Connexion version 2.0,
slated for release in July or so, anyone cataloging IN OCLC (as opposed to
adding via FTP or tapeload) will be able to create institutional records
attached to the master record, which will be visible to everyone else who is
interested. So yes, please continue to include local information in your
records!</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=484155322-11012007><FONT face=Arial
size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=484155322-11012007><FONT face=Arial size=2>I
also heard today that since the merger UCLA and U of Washington have joined RLG
Programs (the new name of the merged entity). Cheers all
around!</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=484155322-11012007><FONT face=Arial
size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=484155322-11012007><FONT face=Arial
size=2>Bob</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV><!-- Converted from text/plain format -->
<P><FONT size=2>Robert L. Maxwell<BR>Special Collections and Ancient Languages
Catalog Librarian<BR>Genre/Form Authorities Librarian<BR>6728 Harold B. Lee
Library<BR>Brigham Young University<BR>Provo, UT 84602<BR>(801)422-5568
</FONT></P>
<DIV> </DIV><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr
style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV class=OutlookMessageHeader lang=en-us dir=ltr align=left>
<HR tabIndex=-1>
<FONT face=Tahoma size=2><B>From:</B> dcrm-l-bounces@lib.byu.edu
[mailto:dcrm-l-bounces@lib.byu.edu] <B>On Behalf Of </B>Eric
Holzenberg<BR><B>Sent:</B> Wednesday, January 10, 2007 1:19 PM<BR><B>To:</B>
DCRM Revision Group List<BR><B>Subject:</B> RE: [DCRM-L] Subfield $5 / Several
cataloguing questions<BR></FONT><BR></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>Katy,<BR><BR>At 02:22 PM 1/10/2007, you wrote:<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE class=cite cite="" type="cite"><FONT face=Garamond>The issue of
OCLC is one that I keep coming back to as I read messages on this list.
Aside from my own personal misgivings about OCLC as the single national
catalogue, it also affects our cataloguing decisions. We are currently not a
member of OCLC and do not submit records, but I have no doubt that will
change sometime in the future. Do we want to record our copy-specific notes
on inscriptions, ownership, etc. in field that may upload to OCLC? Is that
appropriate? My instinct is to keep copy-specific notes in fields which
would display only in our own system (or use a subfield 5 and have them
stripped out). But is that then removing information that might be useful to
a researcher? Because I do not regularly use or catalogue for OCLC, I do not
have a real sense of what is expected, or approved of, or what is “normal”
practice. I have a general feeling that I am missing something... Or perhaps
the whole OCLC/RLIN issue really is just that
confusing.</FONT></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>I would urge you to create, display locally,
and upload to OCLC any and all copy-specific notes of the type you mention.
Presumably the book was purchased for your institution partly (or wholly)
because of these copy-specific qualities: binding, provenance, or
what-have-you. If these notes contain information important for your own
constituency, they are at least potentially of interest to the scholarly
community at large. As I understand it, "normal practice" in OCLC will change
with the merger of the RLIN database, resulting in something closer to RLIN
practice in the treatment of copy-specific information. But whether or not
that happens, I would take the high road, provide as much copy specific
information as possible, and let researchers and other institutions decide
what is useful to them, and what is not.
<BR><BR>Regards,<BR><BR><X-SIGSEP>
<P></X-SIGSEP><A name=OLE_LINK1></A>Eric Holzenberg<BR>Director<BR>The Grolier
Club <BR>47 East 60th Street<BR>New York, NY 10022<BR>phone:
212/838-6690<BR>fax: 212/838-2445<BR>e-mail: ejh@grolierclub.org<BR>website:
<A
href="http://www.grolierclub.org/">www.grolierclub.org</A><BR></P></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>