<html>
<body>
<font size=3>My personal thanks to Jackie for forwarding this discussion.
<br><br>
A few thoughts:<br><br>
- In addition to "reference sources" as source for supplied
information, there's also "cataloger knowledge", especially now
that it's possible to compare an exemplar in hand with online images of
other exemplars. Using EEBO this way has turned up numerous editions
concealed from STC/Wing and everybody else up to the moment of
"Well, look at that!" But lately I'm also getting such results
from more freely accessible resources. I suppose "cataloger
knowledge" is a sort of reference...<br><br>
- The elusiveness of dups (when is the same thing different?) is equally,
sometimes even more an issue with C19 and some C20 materials. Once books
are being churned out from stereo- and electroplates things get really
interesting (people love to mess with plates); then there's the plethora
of imprint variants that turn up in, especially, mid-C19 American books.
The pre-1800 borderline is getting to be a legacy fetish, based more on
cultural values than the material-historical nature of the objects in
question, though I'm very grateful for the exemption of pre-1800
materials from automated DDR. (In any case, the whole "handpress
period" thing is seriously misleading, or at least grossly
oversimplified.)<br><br>
- Exemption of $e dcrm[x] from automated DDR is very desirable. I'm
upgrading a lot of C19 records to dcrmb in part as a kind of protection,
as well as a signal that what appears in transcription is consciously
precise, and that 3XX collations are exhaustive of the elements that
constitute "extent", whether numbered or not.<br><br>
- De-duping in general is an urgent topic for discussion and group
action. I wonder whether identification of dups could be an activity
addressed in Enhance authorization. It's a skill in itself that requires
historical knowledge of printing and publishing patterns, and several
thousand hours of experience. We may not be able to reform the database
at a stroke, but that's no reason for not enabling us to chip away at the
thing. Until, of course, we are identified as human buggy
whips...<br><br>
- I note Glenn's remarks re [250] and 503 with a sense of vindication,
though I'm old enough to appreciate the inevitability of simplifications
that complicate.<br><br>
</font><tt>RICHARD NOBLE : RARE BOOKS CATALOGER : JOHN HAY LIBRARY :
BROWN UNIVERSITY<br>
PROVIDENCE, RI 02912 : 401-863-1187/FAX 863-3384 :
RICHARD_NOBLE@BROWN.EDU <br><br>
</tt><font size=3>At 5/20/2010 02:11 PM, Jackie Dooley
wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">I brought the recent
conversation among Richard Noble and others to the attention of Glenn
Patton, OCLC’s long-time expert in quality control issues (including
record de-duplication), and he provided the information below. In a
nutshell: OCLC does not de-dup records for any pre-1800 imprints, given
the complexities in determining what constitutes a “duplicate.” Further
conversation on this would be welcomed if those in the rare book
cataloging community would find it useful. Issues relating to when to
input a new record are pertinent.<br>
</font></blockquote></body>
</html>