<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1251"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
And, would it be OK to silently correct Glenn Patton's original
email to read "... 'dcr<b>m</b>[x]' code and its predecessor codes"?
He did write "dcrb[x]," but he *meant* "dcrm[x]".<br>
<br>
Randy<br>
<br>
On 2/7/2011 11:02 AM, Erin Blake wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid:8160A9CA17FEBC488A19E00F367FFEDF102D1C48@ARIEL.folger.edu"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=windows-1251">
<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:Consolas;
panose-1:2 11 6 9 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin-top:0cm;
margin-right:0cm;
margin-bottom:10.0pt;
margin-left:0cm;
line-height:115%;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:black;}
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;}
pre
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"HTML Preformatted Char";
margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Courier New";
color:black;}
span.HTMLPreformattedChar
{mso-style-name:"HTML Preformatted Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"HTML Preformatted";
font-family:Consolas;
color:black;}
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:612.0pt 792.0pt;
margin:72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt;}
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="color: rgb(31, 73, 125);">Thanks,
Annie and Manon! My only suggestion would be to replace
“dcrm-“ with “dcrm[x]” in the title and body (so it more
closely matches Glenn Patton’s quoted message) and spell out
what is meant by “these letters” in the parenthetical
remark.<br>
<br>
In other words: . . . “bdrb" or "dcrb" or "dcrm[x]“ (ie.,
any $e code beginning with the letters “dcrm”) . . .<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color: rgb(31, 73, 125);">
EB.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color: rgb(31, 73, 125);"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<div style="border-right: medium none; border-width: 1pt
medium medium; border-style: solid none none; border-color:
rgb(181, 196, 223) -moz-use-text-color -moz-use-text-color;
padding: 3pt 0cm 0cm;">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;
line-height: normal;"><b><span style="font-size: 10pt;
font-family:
"Tahoma","sans-serif"; color:
windowtext;">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:
10pt; font-family:
"Tahoma","sans-serif"; color:
windowtext;"> <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> Monday, February 07, 2011 1:56 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> DCRM Revision Group List<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [DCRM-L] OCLC proposal<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;
line-height: normal;">Thanks for you suggestions. We are now
working with the following draft:<br>
<br>
<br>
<span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New
Roman","serif";"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>Request to OCLC to protect records coded
040 $e "bdrb" or "dcrb" or "dcrm-"</b> <b>from all machine
mergers. </b><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The RBMS Bibliographic Standards Committee
officially requests that OCLC protect all items cataloged
according to 040 $e "bdrb" or "dcrb" or "dcrm-“ (ie., any $e
code beginning with these letters) from all automated mergers.
Because the DCRM suite of cataloging rules has been written
to include materials from all periods, not just pre 1801
items, OCLC's current protection of pre-1801 records offers
insufficient protection to the range of materials likely to be
cataloged according to DCRM. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Background information:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">In Jan. 2010, OCLC began running duplicate
detection software which allows for machine matches and
mergers. OCLC’s Cataloging Defensively Webinar, "When to Input
a New Record in the Age of DDR," encouraged catalogers to
supply edition statements in square brackets when there are
true differences between bibliographic entities that would be
matched and merged in the absence of the MARC 250. <br>
<br>
DCRM(B) and DCRM(S) rules, however, do not allow catalogers to
supply an edition statement. The area is a transcription area
only. In addition, trying to devise an edition statement when
one is not there is extremely problematic, especially in the
case of concealed editions - closely similar editions printed
from substantially different settings of type - which are not
distinguished as such by the printer and/or publisher but
require separate records. <br>
<br>
In a message from Glenn Patton forwarded to the dcrm-l email
list by Jackie Dooley on May 20, 2010, he assured us that :<br>
<br>
“OCLC’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’t). 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. We could consider some more
complex exclusions that would be based on the 040 $e coding
(e.g., exclude all with a ‘dcrb[x]’ code and its predecessor
codes) if the rare book community felt this would be
desirable… It would be useful to carry forward this
discussion with the rare book community. Nobody wants to play
“fast and loose” with record merging, but, on the other hand,
I don’t think people really want a situation where there’s no
attempt to match at all." <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Discussion at the Bibliographic Standards
Committee meeting in San Diego in January included accounts of
catalogers reporting duplicate records for deletion. The rare
book cataloging community will continue to report duplicates
in this way. <br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;
line-height: normal;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;
font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";"><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
On 2/7/2011 12:43 PM, Manon Theroux wrote: <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<pre>Here are my suggestions, Annie:<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre><o:p> </o:p></pre>
<pre>-- make it clear in the Title that you're only talking about machine<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>mergers (not "any and all mergers")<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>-- make it clear what is meant by "dcrm-" (maybe by adding a<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>parenthetical such as "i.e., any subfield $e code beginning with the<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>letters dcrm"). Glenn probably knows what you mean but whoever he<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>hands it off to (the programmers) might not<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>-- put what the BSC is asking for in the *first* paragraph instead of<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>the last one; use language that actually does the asking rather than<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>saying the BSC "decided to ask"; label it as "Proposal" or<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>"Recommendation" or "Request" or some such thing<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>-- label the remaining paragraphs "Background Information" or something similar<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre><o:p> </o:p></pre>
<pre>Thanks for doing this!<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre><o:p> </o:p></pre>
<pre>Manon<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre><o:p> </o:p></pre>
<pre>On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 11:57 AM, Ann W. Copeland <a moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:auc1@psu.edu"><auc1@psu.edu></a> wrote:<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre> <o:p></o:p></pre>
<blockquote style="margin-top: 5pt; margin-bottom: 5pt;">
<pre>At the Bibliographic Standards Committee meeting in San Diego, I offered to<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>draft a proposal to OCLC to omit all dcrm, dcrb and bdrb records from<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>automatic deduping. Here is a draft - please send comments. Thank you,<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>Annie<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre><o:p> </o:p></pre>
<pre><o:p> </o:p></pre>
<pre>Request to OCLC to protect records coded 040 $e "bdrb" or "dcrb" or "dcrm-"<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>from any and all mergers.<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre><o:p> </o:p></pre>
<pre>In Jan. 2010, OCLC began running duplicate detection software which allows<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>for machine matches and mergers. OCLC’s Cataloging Defensively Webinar,<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>"When to Input a New Record in the Age of DDR," encouraged catalogers to<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>supply edition statements in square brackets when there are true differences<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>between bibliographic entities that would be matched and merged in the<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>absence of the MARC 250.<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre><o:p> </o:p></pre>
<pre>DCRM(B) and DCRM(S) rules, however, do not allow catalogers to supply an<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>edition statement. The area is a transcription area only. In addition,<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>trying to devise an edition statement when one is not there is also<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>extremely problematic, especially in the case of concealed editions -<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>closely similar editions printed from substantially different settings of<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>type - which are not distinguished as such by the printer and/or publisher<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>but require separate records.<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre><o:p> </o:p></pre>
<pre>In a message from Glenn Patton forwarded to the dcrm-l email list by Jackie<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>Dooley on May 20, 2010, he assured us that :<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre><o:p> </o:p></pre>
<pre>“OCLC’s Duplicate Detection and Resolution software (DDR) does not merge<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>records if one of the imprint dates is pre-1800, nor would OCLC staff merge<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>records in this situation unless it were absolutely clear that the records<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>represented the same item (but we would be willing to work with someone who<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>had gone through the effort of working out which were true duplicates and<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>which weren’t). While the matching software used to load records prepared in<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>external systems into WorldCat is very similar to that used in DDR, it does<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>not include the pre-1800 exclusion. We could consider some more complex<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>exclusions that would be based on the 040 $e coding (e.g., exclude all with<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>a ‘dcrb[x]’ code and its predecessor codes) if the rare book community felt<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>this would be desirable… It would be useful to carry forward this<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>discussion with the rare book community. Nobody wants to play “fast and<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>loose” with record merging, but, on the other hand, I don’t think people<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>really want a situation where there’s no attempt to match at all."<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre><o:p> </o:p></pre>
<pre>At ALA Midwinter 2011, the RBMS Bibliographic Standards Committee decided to<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>ask OCLC to protect all items cataloged according to 040 ‡e "bdrb" or "dcrb"<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>or "dcrm-“ from machine mergers. Because the DCRM suite of cataloging rules<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>has been written to include materials from all periods, not just pre 1801<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>items, OCLC's protection of pre-1801 records offers insufficient protection<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>to the range of materials likely to be cataloged according to DCRM.<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre><o:p> </o:p></pre>
<pre><o:p> </o:p></pre>
<pre><o:p> </o:p></pre>
<pre> <o:p></o:p></pre>
</blockquote>
<pre><o:p> </o:p></pre>
<pre><o:p> </o:p></pre>
<pre> <o:p></o:p></pre>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
__________________________
Randal Brandt
Principal Cataloger
The Bancroft Library
(510) 643-2275
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:rbrandt@library.berkeley.edu">rbrandt@library.berkeley.edu</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://bancroft.berkeley.edu">http://bancroft.berkeley.edu</a>
"It's hard enough to remember my opinions without
remembering my reasons for them"--The Streets.
</pre>
</body>
</html>