<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 12 (filtered medium)">
<style>
<!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-compose;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;}
@page Section1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.Section1
{page:Section1;}
-->
</style>
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple>
<div class=Section1>
<p class=MsoNormal>I understand a group called “The RLG Union Catalog
Advisory Committee” has discussed the issue of private information in
local records with OCLC and has “ratified” the following decision.
I may be totally out of the loop, but I hadn’t heard a whisper about it
and thought maybe you all hadn’t either. I am certain it was not
discussed on this rare cataloging discussion list, at any rate, and it does
affect us.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal>It appears that this Committee wanted to ensure that “all
possible private information was protected.” By “private” I
assume things like donors, prices paid, etc., is meant. Four fields were
discussed:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal>541, 561, 583, and 590<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal>The Committee decided that in OCLC, the first indicator in
any of these field must be coded “1” for the field to
display. In other words, if the indicator is coded “blank” or “0”
the field will <i>not</i> display. (In the MARC format documentation for 541,
461, and 583, “0” means private, “1” means not private,
“blank” means no information provided. No such coding is defined
for 590.)<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal>I am particularly concerned about this decision with respect
to 590, and also to some extent about 561. It appears that (nonstandard) indicators
1 and 0 have been available for some time in OCLC for 590, but to my knowledge
they were never so defined in RLIN, and so no 590s coming from RLIN libraries
will be so coded. Therefore by fiat none of the 590s currently in
RLIN-originated records, and probably in most OCLC-originated records (I’d
be interested in hearing from OCLC catalogers if they used these indicators),
will display. Wasn’t that one of the major points about RLG libraries
wanting the institution records, that the local information would display? This
action will defeat that purpose for the majority of records.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal>I am not in favor of “opt in” for 590, in other
words, you have to manually insert an indicator or it will not display. It
seems to me that if anyone has actually put private information in a 590
(something I would never do in my own cataloging), the burden should be on them
to use this indicator to indicate a desire that the information NOT display,
not the other way around. In my opinion, blank should <i>not</i> trigger non-display.
I also think the same thing about 561. 561 is not used for the immediate source
of acquisition, but for the custodial history of the item, something that in
most cases is not “private” in the sense that we want to protect
donors or hide how much we paid for the item or whatever. In this case, too, I
feel that the burden should be on the cataloger to say they do NOT want the
field displayed, not on the rest of us to say we DO want the field to display.
I feel less strongly about 583 and 541, but do hold the same opinion about
them.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal>Anyway, though it may be after the fact, I thought this
deserved discussion here.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal>Thanks,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal>Bob<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"'>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 </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</body>
</html>