<html>
<body>
<font size=3>This is a copy of a message I just sent to Tech Services
types here at Brown.<br><br>
Is this something that the BSC should address asap? This kind of <i>fait
accompli</i> is not an encouraging development after our discussion with
Susan Westberg, of OCLC, at the MASC meeting at ALA Annual. -
Richard<br><br>
-------------------------------------------------------------<br>
A heads up concerning IR's in WorldCat. It appears from subsequent dcrm-l
traffic that there has indeed been what is essentially a closed-door
decision to suppress 590s; one person reported that her institution has
put confidential information into 590s, though others are dismayed that
one of the key fields that justifies public access to IR's is to be
defaulted into oblivion.<br><br>
At this point the "RLG Union Catalog Advisory Committee" seems
to be a rather shadowy group. Googling it only gets me obsolete RLG
pages; I can't find anything about its membership or procedures on the
OCLC site. I hope we can get some non-PR response from OCLC.<br><br>
Richard<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">From: Robert Maxwell
<robert_maxwell@byu.edu><br>
To: DCRM Revision Group List <dcrm-l@lib.byu.edu><br>
Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2007 08:55:56 -0700<br><br>
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.<br>
<br>
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:<br>
<br>
541, 561, 583, and 590<br>
<br>
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.)<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
Anyway, though it may be after the fact, I thought this deserved
discussion here.<br>
<br>
Thanks,<br>
Bob<br>
<br>
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></blockquote></body>
</html>