<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#CCCCCC" text="#000000">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Hi Dick:<br>
<br>
We were not notified either until I read about this on this list.<br>
It seems that we all have the same experience here.<br>
Why make such a claim when it is patently untrue?<br>
<br>
While we still have the power to upgrade a master record, with the
quality of some records<br>
for handpress era in OCLC it's often impossible to really match
without a 510 citation, a field which is not transferred to an LBD
record.<br>
So how can you upgrade that record when you really don't know what
you have in front of you?<br>
For special collections cataloguers that is a real issue.<br>
<br>
I think what we are going to do is just to edit the record in
Connexion, which will contain all the 5XX notes <br>
and local fields but will not save in the master record, export
those records from Connexion into our<br>
local catalogue and then if that record needs to be edited again,
there will have to be a copy and paste job done<br>
from the record as it lives in the local catalogue to the newly
re-edited master.<br>
<br>
If the LBDs are as useless as Dick makes them sound and they are
only available to view locally, then why even<br>
subscribe to a Worldcat Metadata API or Worldcat Metadata Record
Manager. It may just cause more work for something that<br>
no one else really sees. And scholars will just have to consult
the record in the institution's local catalogue.<br>
<br>
It just seems to be **counter-intuitive** and, as Dick says, it is
going backwards.<br>
I know and can appreciate that change is a constant in life but I
do not like being lied to or being ignored.<br>
I think that many people on this list will appreciate that
sentiment.<br>
<br>
~Allison<br>
<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:00f801d06820$6b6f68d0$424e3a70$@edu"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">The LBD records are a poor substitute for IR records as they are not
retrievable or viewable except locally. This seems to me to offer a false
alternative that actually is going backwards. The IRs have enriched
retrievals as they did in RLIN both due to additional entries and keywords
and are particularly useful when comparing records for details that don't
appear in the master record. It is sad indeed that these neatly clustered
records are being sacked with flimsy reasoning, when the myriad duplicate
OCLC records found in almost any search will remain to clutter the results.
Did OCLC actually do any study of how much access is being lost? Retrieval
will be lost and catalogers who go the extra mile will be discouraged, while
OCLC searches will continue to produce results that are less than desirable.
Our official notification was only this month with no opportunity for input.
What a cooperative!
Dick Miller
Director for Resource Management
Lane Medical Library
Stanford University
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
********************************
"Outside of a dog,
a book is probably man's best friend,
and inside of a dog,
it's too dark to read.
- Groucho Marx"
Allison Rich
Rare Materials Cataloguer
ESTC and NACO Coordinator
John Carter Brown Library
Providence, Rhode Island
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Allison_Rich@brown.edu">Allison_Rich@brown.edu</a>
******************************** </pre>
</body>
</html>