<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
Jackie,<br>
<br>
We did discuss this at what used to be called MASC last winter. Here
from the minutes:<br>
<br>
<b> A)</b>. <b><i>OCLC issues.</i></b> <br>
<br>
<i> Given the new functionality available in OCLC to improve records,
are
catalogers working differently --for example, routinely adding
genre/form
terms to master records? <br>
</i> <br>
Some participants said they search the OCLC database for a suitable
record to enhance using DCRM(B) cataloging rules and/or they add genre
terms and notes to AACR2 records, others said they upgrade their
records only in their local database. The concern that
other catalogers could delete the information in enhanced records in
OCLC
was mentioned as was the belief that public services librarians would
prefer less elaborate records. <br>
<br>
Annie Copland reported that on behalf of the RBMS Bibliographic
Standards
Committee she had written to OCLC to inquire about the possibility of
OCLC
allowing duplicate records for the same item, one record cataloged
according to
AACR2 and another according to DCRM. OCLC responded that rather than
allowing permissible duplicates, they prefer having the DCRM record, as
the one
containing the most information, be the master record. OCLC wondered
how
libraries would react to this change. A show of hands of MASC
participants was called for and a large majority indicated their
preference for
the DCRM record being the master record. Some attendees asked to have
an
OCLC representative at a future MASC meeting to discuss master records,
duplicate records and proliferation of records in the database.<br>
<br>
Glenn then issued this in May I believe:<br>
<br>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color: rgb(31, 73, 125);"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: "Arial Unicode MS","sans-serif"; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);">OCLC</span><span
style="font-size: 10pt; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);">’</span><span
style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: "Arial Unicode MS","sans-serif"; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);">s
Duplicate
Detection and Resolution software (DDR) does not merge records if one
of the imprint dates is pre-1800, nor would OCLC staff merge records in
this
situation unless it were absolutely clear that the records represented
the same
item (but we would be willing to work with someone who had gone through
the
effort of working out which were true duplicates and which weren</span><span
style="font-size: 10pt; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);">’</span><span
style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: "Arial Unicode MS","sans-serif"; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);">t).</span><span
style="font-size: 10pt; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);"> </span><span
style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: "Arial Unicode MS","sans-serif"; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);">
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: "Arial Unicode MS","sans-serif"; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: "Arial Unicode MS","sans-serif"; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);">While
the matching software used to load records prepared in
external systems into WorldCat is very similar to that used in DDR, it
does not
include the pre-1800 exclusion.</span><span
style="font-size: 10pt; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);"> </span><span
style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: "Arial Unicode MS","sans-serif"; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);">
We could consider some more complex exclusions that would be based on
the 040
$e coding (e.g., exclude all with a </span><span
style="font-size: 10pt; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);">‘</span><span
style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: "Arial Unicode MS","sans-serif"; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);">dcrb[x]</span><span
style="font-size: 10pt; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);">’</span><span
style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: "Arial Unicode MS","sans-serif"; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);">
code and its predecessor codes) if the rare book community felt this
would be desirable.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: "Arial Unicode MS","sans-serif"; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: "Arial Unicode MS","sans-serif"; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);">It</span><span
style="font-size: 10pt; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);">’</span><span
style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: "Arial Unicode MS","sans-serif"; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);">s
certainly
true that a WorldCat record can end up with holdings attached that
represent variations of the item described in the bibliographic record.</span><span
style="font-size: 10pt; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);"> </span><span
style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: "Arial Unicode MS","sans-serif"; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);">
OCLC
matching has not always been as restrictive as it is now, and
catalogers
certainly may have chosen “close” master records and then made
adaptations in
their local systems.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: "Arial Unicode MS","sans-serif"; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: "Arial Unicode MS","sans-serif"; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);">The
issue of not recording an edition statement based on a
reference source is a very problematic one.</span><span
style="font-size: 10pt; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);"> </span><span
style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: "Arial Unicode MS","sans-serif"; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);">
Having an edition statement (even a bracketed one) would, I
believe, prevent mismatches in both DDR and Batchload; having that
information
in the “first note” </span><span
style="font-size: 10pt; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);"> </span><span
style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: "Arial Unicode MS","sans-serif"; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);">(which
I
assume would be a 500, since the 503 is no longer valid) is not the
sort of
thing that is “actionable” from a machine matching perspective.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: "Arial Unicode MS","sans-serif"; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: "Arial Unicode MS","sans-serif"; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);">It
would be useful to carry forward this discussion with the
rare book community.</span><span
style="font-size: 10pt; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);"> </span><span
style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: "Arial Unicode MS","sans-serif"; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);">
Nobody wants to play “fast and loose” with record merging, but, on the
other
hand, I don</span><span
style="font-size: 10pt; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);">’</span><span
style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: "Arial Unicode MS","sans-serif"; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);">t
think
people really want a situation where there</span><span
style="font-size: 10pt; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);">’</span><span
style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: "Arial Unicode MS","sans-serif"; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);">s
no attempt to match at all.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 10pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color: rgb(31, 73, 125);">Glenn E.
Patton<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<span style="color: rgb(31, 73, 125);">Director, WorldCat Quality
Management</span><br>
<br>
I'm not sure where we want to go with this now. <br>
<br>
Thanks, Annie<br>
<br>
On 11/3/2010 1:22 PM, Dooley,Jackie wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid:2FA61018D659CF4B95A0F938AE66965A0A91720C@OAEXCH4SERVER.oa.oclc.org"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<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;}
@font-face
{font-family:"Palatino Linotype";
panose-1:2 4 5 2 5 5 5 3 3 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;
font-family:"Palatino Linotype","serif";
color:#1F497D;}
span.EmailStyle19
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
-->
</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]-->
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);">Big
questions acout which, IMHO, Bib Standards oughta have
discussions. -Jackie<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<div
style="border-style: solid none none; border-color: rgb(181, 196, 223) -moz-use-text-color -moz-use-text-color; border-width: 1pt medium medium; padding: 3pt 0in 0in;">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: "Tahoma","sans-serif";">From:</span></b><span
style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: "Tahoma","sans-serif";">
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:dcrm-l-bounces@lib.byu.edu">dcrm-l-bounces@lib.byu.edu</a> [<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:dcrm-l-bounces@lib.byu.edu">mailto:dcrm-l-bounces@lib.byu.edu</a>] <b>On
Behalf Of </b>Deborah
J. Leslie<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, November 03, 2010 7:35 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> DCRM Revision Group List<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [DCRM-L] OCLC de-duping algorithms and dates of
publication<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family: "Palatino Linotype","serif"; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);">Thanks
for Annie’s comment. I have mixed feelings about the no
de-duping of pre-1801 publications. Would OCLC really give preference
to dcrm
records if they were to de-dupe? Even over pcc records? <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);">__________________________________________<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size: 9pt; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);">Deborah
J. Leslie, M.A., M.L.S.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size: 9pt; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);">RBMS
past chair 2010-2011 | Head of Cataloging, Folger
Shakespeare Library<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size: 9pt; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);">201
East Capitol St., S.E., Washington, D.C. 20003 |
202.675-0369 (phone) 202.675-0328 (fax) | <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:djleslie@folger.edu">djleslie@folger.edu</a> |
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.folger.edu">www.folger.edu</a><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family: "Palatino Linotype","serif"; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family: "Palatino Linotype","serif"; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div
style="border-style: solid none none; border-color: rgb(181, 196, 223) -moz-use-text-color -moz-use-text-color; border-width: 1pt medium medium; padding: 3pt 0in 0in;">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: "Tahoma","sans-serif";">From:</span></b><span
style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: "Tahoma","sans-serif";">
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:dcrm-l-bounces@lib.byu.edu">dcrm-l-bounces@lib.byu.edu</a> [<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:dcrm-l-bounces@lib.byu.edu">mailto:dcrm-l-bounces@lib.byu.edu</a>] <b>On
Behalf Of </b>ANN
W. COPELAND<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, 02 November, 2010 22:45<br>
<b>To:</b> Erin Blake<br>
<b>Cc:</b> DCRM Revision Group List<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [DCRM-L] OCLC de-duping algorithms and dates of
publication<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12pt;">Interestingly, when
we asked
about permissible duplicates (one DCRM, one AACR2) OCLC said they did
NOT want
duplicate records. Instead they wanted to merge records with the DCRM
record
surviving as the master record. So, why exempt pre-1800 books from the
de-duping? Why not work the algorithm to favor DCRM? <br>
<br>
Thanks, Annie<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>