<html>
<body>
Bob,<br>
OCLC's "Guidelines for National Level Enhance participants"
include this guidance: <br><br>
<b>Do not</b> leave in the master record local data that has no value to
other libraries making subsequent use of the record. Generally omit local
"bound-with" information and copy-specific notes and/or added
entries for:
<ol>
<li>Routine administrative information, such as donor information.
<li>Holdings information.
<li>Binding or dust jacket descriptions for modern materials.
<li>Provenance or location information.
<li>Names of internal collections.
<li>Information that applies to a copy that you do not own, including
information from LC printed copy.
</ol>Joe Springer<br><br>
At 05:52 PM 10/22/2008, you wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">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. <br>
<br>
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. <br>
<br>
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?<br>
<br>
Bob<br>
<br>
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<br>
<br>
<b>From:</b> dcrm-l-bounces@lib.byu.edu
[<a href="mailto:dcrm-l-bounces@lib.byu.edu" eudora="autourl">
mailto:dcrm-l-bounces@lib.byu.edu</a>] <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<br>
<br>
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>
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" eudora="autourl">
</a><a href="mailto:dcrm-l-bounces@lib.byu.edu" eudora="autourl">
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<br><br>
Joe Springer<br>
joeas@goshen.edu/574-535-7421<br>
fax 574-535-7438</blockquote>
<x-sigsep><p></x-sigsep>
Joe Springer<br>
joeas@goshen.edu/574-535-7421<br>
fax 574-535-7438</body>
</html>