<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;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","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;}
p
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
span.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@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><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>A related question for the OCLC experts in the list. I’ve
encountered the following problem from time to time when I’ve been
cataloging in OCLC over the last year and a half or so since the great switch
from RLIN. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>I think we all realize that there are many ways in which $5 or
other local information gets into master records, and not always or perhaps
even usually by someone cataloging directly in OCLC. Many records in OCLC now
are there because they were uploaded from a local catalog, and sometimes these
uploaded records become the master record, either because they do not match
against an existing master record or because they are a PCC record and overlay
the non-PCC master record. There may be other reasons. In all of these cases
local information potentially wind up in master records, whether coded $5 or
not. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>My question is this. When enhancing a master record, what should
be done with this clearly local stuff? Should it be deleted from the master
record? I’m talking about things like “Signed by Douglas McMurtrie”
or “Bound with X” (not so issued by the publisher) or “Library
copy lacks p. 100-150”. When enhancing the record I’ve sometimes
tried to divine which library the local information applies to and then adding
a $5 for that library and leaving the field, but that’s tricky sometimes.
On the other hand, wholesale deleting of the stuff — ? Yet it doesn’t
belong in the master record. Thoughts?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>Bob<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>Robert L. Maxwell<br>
Head, Special Collections and Metadata Catalog Dept.<br>
6728 Harold B. Lee Library<br>
Brigham Young University<br>
Provo, UT 84602<br>
(801)422-5568</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<div style='border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'>
<p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>From:</span></b><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'> dcrm-l-bounces@lib.byu.edu
[mailto:dcrm-l-bounces@lib.byu.edu] <b>On Behalf Of </b>Joe Springer<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, October 22, 2008 12:09 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> DCRM Revision Group List<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [DCRM-L] Library ID codes/$5 in master records<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal>I must be working with a less-evolved concept of $5 and Erin
may well be correct. MARC21 Appendix A defines $5 as "MARC code of
the institution or organization that holds the copy to which the data in the
field applies. Data in the field may not apply to the universal description of
the item or may apply universally to the item but be of interest only to the location
cited." In my mind/practice heretofore I recognized that the
data might apply universally to the item, but didn't restrict use of $5 just to
data "of interest only to the location cited." OCLC's
bibliographic format instructions are currently written in a way that seems
somewhat narrower than the actual MARC definition "Use for notes that do<b>
not</b> apply to the universal description of the item."<br>
Joe<br>
<br>
<br>
At 12:40 PM 10/22/2008, you wrote:<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'>The library ID code indicates
where the information applies rather than where it originates, though. If
a reliable date for an undated publication can be supplied from a particular
library's acquisition records, wouldn't that be a general note? A note in
the master record saying "Publication date from [Full Name of Library]'s
acquisition records" (without a library ID code) seems appropriate, since
the information applies to all copies.<br>
<br>
EB.<br>
<br>
--------------------------------------- <br>
Erin C. Blake, Ph.D. | Curator of Art & Special Collections | Folger
Shakespeare Library | 201 E. Capitol St. SE | Washington, DC 20003-1004 |
office tel. 202.675-0323 | fax 202.675-0328 | e-mail: eblake@folger.edu<br>
<br>
<br>
<b>From:</b> dcrm-l-bounces@lib.byu.edu [<a
href="mailto:dcrm-l-bounces@lib.byu.edu"> mailto:dcrm-l-bounces@lib.byu.edu</a>]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Joe Springer<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, October 22, 2008 12:12 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> DCRM Revision Group List<br>
<b>Subject:</b> [DCRM-L] Library ID codes/$5 in master records<br>
<br>
And there are other instances where $5 identifiers are appropriate in master
records. For example, you may find yourself doing original cataloging of
a work that does not bear a publication date, but local records date the work
reliably. This could mean a note such as "Publication date from
library's acquisition records. $5 [code]" At times you may do
original cataloging of a work that is not complete and about which you cannot
find further details. This may also warrant including in the master
record information that would normally appear only as a local note. <br>
Joe Springer<br>
Mennonite Historical Library<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>Joe Springer<br>
joeas@goshen.edu/574-535-7421<br>
fax 574-535-7438<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</body>
</html>