<div dir="ltr"><div>Whew. Thanks for the quick clarification, Kate.<br><br></div>Liz<br></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 1:08 PM, Kate Moriarty <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:moriarks@slu.edu" target="_blank">moriarks@slu.edu</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr">Liz and Lenore,<div><br></div><div>You're right. I was remembering a discussion about automated RDA changes to OCLC records. Different issue - my apologies.</div><div><br></div><div>-Kate</div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 11:34 AM, Rouse, Lenore <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:rouse@cua.edu" target="_blank">rouse@cua.edu</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
This is probably a dumb question, but even without amremm in a
record, under what circumstance would OCLC ever merge a record for
a <u>manuscript</u>, which by definition is unique? I've operated
under the assumption that I would never have to worry about our ms.
records being merged.<br>
<br>
Re Jackie's question - I now catalog practically everything as DCRM
but this was not the case in this institution until perhaps 10 years
ago or whenever I wised up. I haven't recataloged AACR2 records
into dcrm either. So there are indeed many post 1801 items that
might easily succumb to merging. I'd argue for an 1840 or 1850
cutoff date but that might be too conservative for some.<span><font color="#888888"><br>
Lenore<br>
<br>
<pre cols="72">--
Lenore M. Rouse
Curator, Rare Books and Special Collections
The Catholic University of America
Room 214, Mullen Library
620 Michigan Avenue N.E.
Washington, D.C. 20064
PHONE: <a href="tel:202%20319-5090" value="+12023195090" target="_blank">202 319-5090</a>
E-MAIL: <a href="mailto:rouse@cua.edu" target="_blank">rouse@cua.edu</a>
RBSC BLOG: <a href="http://ascendonica.blogspot.com/" target="_blank">http://ascendonica.blogspot.com/</a> </pre></font></span><div><div>
<br>
<br>
<div>On 9/4/2015 11:37 AM, Kate Moriarty
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">Thank you for this, Jackie and John.
<div><br>
</div>
<div>As others have stated, I would be in favor of moving the
cut-off date to a later date, though I'll leave it to those
with a larger post-1801 collection to suggest a specific date.<br>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Jackie, regarding your 2nd question, I believe you
mentioned last year that OCLC would be adding "amremm" to
the list of 040 $e DDR exemptions. You said it wouldn't be
easy - have you had any success with it?</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>And in answer to your last question, we regularly code
the 040 $e here and, at least from the records I see in
OCLC, it seems like others do, too.</div>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Thanks,<br>
Kate</div>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 9:51 AM,
Chapman,John <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:chapmanj@oclc.org" target="_blank">chapmanj@oclc.org</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div style="word-wrap:break-word;color:rgb(0,0,0);font-size:14px;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>Richard and Francis,</div>
<div> </div>
<div>We are asking if the 1801 cutoff (or the 1901
cartographic exception date) need to be adjusted,
but are not suggesting that it should be earlier.
We would expect that, if a change is agreed upon,
the dates would be later.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>We are asking the question of the DCRM-L
community to see if there is any consensus that
can be reached about a change, or if the current
scheme is logical and can remain. The context that
Richard provided should be helpful in the
discussion.</div>
<div> </div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>--</div>
<div>
<div>John Chapman</div>
<div>OCLC · Product Manager, Metadata Services</div>
<div>6565 Kilgour Place, Dublin, OH 43017 USA
</div>
<div>T <a href="tel:%2B1-614-761-5272" value="+16147615272" target="_blank">+1-614-761-5272</a></div>
</div>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<span>
<div style="font-family:Calibri;font-size:12pt;text-align:left;color:black;BORDER-BOTTOM:medium none;BORDER-LEFT:medium none;PADDING-BOTTOM:0in;PADDING-LEFT:0in;PADDING-RIGHT:0in;BORDER-TOP:#b5c4df 1pt solid;BORDER-RIGHT:medium none;PADDING-TOP:3pt">
<span style="font-weight:bold">From: </span><<a href="mailto:dcrm-l-bounces@lib.byu.edu" target="_blank"></a><a href="mailto:dcrm-l-bounces@lib.byu.edu" target="_blank">dcrm-l-bounces@lib.byu.edu</a>>
on behalf of "Noble, Richard"<br>
<span style="font-weight:bold">Reply-To: </span>DCRM
Users' Group<br>
<span style="font-weight:bold">Date: </span>Friday,
September 4, 2015 at 10:23 AM<br>
<span style="font-weight:bold">To: </span>DCRM Users'
Group<br>
<span style="font-weight:bold">Subject: </span>Re:
[DCRM-L] OCLC's duplicate detection & resolution
software: two questions for the rare and archival
materials communities<br>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:georgia,serif;font-size:small">Quick
response: the cut-off for books should, if
anything, be later, not earlier. The year
1801 is arbitrary, as much established as it
is in national bibliographies and the like.
It seems to be understood as the end of the
"hand-press period", which is historically
not the case. For English books that would
be no earlier than 1820, and for some
continental books even later (I see German
books of the 1840s printed direct from type
on handmade laid paper, for instance).</div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:georgia,serif;font-size:small"><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:georgia,serif;font-size:small">But
the bibliographical significance of
"hand-press" has been great exaggerated.
While printers become more and more adept at
covering their tracks as the c19 proceeds,
bibliographical analysis and description are
very much applicable to post-1801 books and
post "hand-press" books, for the most basic
of our FRBR purposes: the identification of
manifestations, and, at the most learned
level, the specification of diagnostic
evidence for distinction of manifestations,
as well as explicit accounting for evidence
of variation within the body of items that
constitute a manifestation.</div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:georgia,serif;font-size:small"><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:georgia,serif;font-size:small">That
said, I suppose--assuming that the exemption
of dcrm records from automatic de-duping
continues--the idea is to establish criteria
by which to exempt a range of non-dcrm
records as well. Earlier versions of dcrm
tended to emphasize 1801/"hand-press period"
as a cutoff for application of the special
rules (and the consequent finer-grained
analysis of supporting evidence and
variation), so it it made sense of a kind to
specify that range. As tempting as it is,
however, to limit dcrm to hand-press books
because it is easier to analyze and describe
them, I know from considerable experience
that post-1801 books printed from plates,
perhaps based on mechanical composition, are
equally and more subtly variable.</div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:georgia,serif;font-size:small"><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:georgia,serif;font-size:small">The
whole body of pre-1801 works forms, I
presume, a relatively small percentage of
the material represented in the database,
though the mass of duplicate records
generated by uploading of incommensurably
cataloged material is considerable. The
problem is not so much the conflation of
different manifestations indifferently
described, as it is the loss of information
that takes place when merged records are
expunged, which precludes conscious and
focused comparison--by catalogers well
versed in the vagaries of legacy and minimal
cataloging--as a check on de-duping errors.</div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:georgia,serif;font-size:small"><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:georgia,serif;font-size:small">I
would be dismayed to see an irreversible
process applied to an even greater range of
materials than before. IRs being a lost
cause, this would be mitigated to some
extent if records represented in 019 fields
could be preserved for inspection (beyond
the current brief grace period) in such a
way as not to impede the operations of the
WorldCat as a whole. But as Francis Lapka
pointed out, the regression of the date
cutoff does seem to be a retraction, not an
expansion, of safeguards.</div>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br clear="all">
<div>
<div><font face="courier new,monospace">RICHARD
NOBLE :: RARE MATERIALS CATALOGUER ::
JOHN HAY LIBRARY</font>
<div><font face="courier new,monospace">BROWN
UNIVERSITY :: PROVIDENCE, R.I. 02912
:: <a href="tel:401-863-1187" value="+14018631187" target="_blank">401-863-1187</a></font></div>
<div><span><</span><a href="mailto:RICHARD_NOBLE@BROWN.EDU" target="_blank">Richard_Noble@Br</a><span><a href="http://own.edu" target="_blank">own.edu</a></span><span>></span></div>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Sep 4, 2015
at 9:00 AM, Lapka, Francis <span dir="ltr">
<<a href="mailto:francis.lapka@yale.edu" target="_blank">francis.lapka@yale.edu</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div link="#0563C1" vlink="#954F72" lang="EN-US">
<div>
<p><span style="font-family:Georgia,serif">Jackie,</span><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Georgia,serif"></span></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Georgia,serif">I'm
grateful for your message, and
pleased to hear that OCLC is
considering changes "to expand and
strengthen the safeguards we
already apply to bibliographic
records for unique, rare, and/or
archival materials."</span></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Georgia,serif">At
first blush, it would seem
that moving the chronological
exception for de-duping to an
earlier date might *weaken*
the safeguards, since it would
make the exception apply to a
smaller set of records. Could
you tell us more about the
motivation for this particular
change and how it might serve
to strengthen the safeguards?</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Georgia,serif"> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Georgia,serif">Thanks<span></span></span></p>
<span></span></div>
<span><font color="#888888">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Georgia,serif">Francis</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
</font></span></div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#787878">On
Fri, Sep 04, 2015 at 4:18
AM, Dooley,Jackie <<a href="mailto:dooleyj@oclc.org" target="_blank"></a><a href="mailto:dooleyj@oclc.org" target="_blank">dooleyj@oclc.org</a>>
wrote:</span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:10.5pt">
</span>
Dear DCRM-L -- </p>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"> <span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in;background:white">On
behalf of my
colleagues on OCLC's
Metadata Quality Team,
I'm writing to pose
two questions: 1)
whether the pre-1801
cutoff for excluding
records from
de-duplication should
be changed to an
earlier date, and 2)
whether additional
cataloging code
symbols should be
added to the 040 $e
exception. </p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"> </p>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in;background:white">We're
considering changes to
the automated
Duplicate Detection
and Resolution (DDR)
software and are
seeking community
opinion before taking
action. The
contemplated changes
are
<b>intended to expand
and strengthen the
safeguards we
already apply to
bibliographic
records for unique,
rare, and/or
archival materials</b>. As
members of the rare
and/or archival
cataloging community,
you are in an
excellent position to
provide informed
advice on these
issues.<span></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in;background:white"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in;background:white">First,
some background. OCLC
first developed the
capability to merge
bibliographic records
manually in 1983.
During the late 1980s
and early 1990s, we
developed automated
DDR software, which
dealt with Books
records only. From
2005 through 2009,
OCLC developed a
completely new version
of DDR that worked
with all bibliographic
formats. From the very
beginning of automated
DDR back in 1991,
<b>records for
resources with dates
of
publication/production
earlier than 1801
have been set aside
and not processed</b>.
More recently, in
consultation with the
American Library
Association (ALA) Map
and Geospatial
Information Round
Table (MAGIRT)
Cataloging and
Classification
Committee (CCC), we
have further <b>exempted
records for
cartographic
materials with dates
of publication
earlier than 1901</b>.
<b>In addition, </b>we
exempt from DDR
processing all records
for resources that can
be identified as<b>
photographs
(Material Types
“pht” for photograph
and/or “pic” for
picture)</b>.</p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"> </p>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in;background:white">Following
discussions with
representatives of the
rare materials
community several
years ago,
<b>we also exempted
from DDR processing
all records that are
coded in field 040
subfield $e under
description
conventions for rare
materials codes
"bdrb", "dcrb",
"dcrmb”, or “dcrms</b>.”
Please note that these
DDR exemptions are
<i>not</i> intended to
apply to electronic,
microform, or other
reproductions, only to
the original
resources.<span></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"> </p>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in;background:white">The
current DDR software
is incredibly
complicated and
continues to be
fine-tuned on a
regular basis.
Although this is an
oversimplification of
a complex process,
there are now at least
two dozen different
points of comparison
taken into
consideration. Many of
these comparison
points draw data from
multiple parts of a
bibliographic record
and involve
manipulation of data
in ways designed to
distinguish both
variations that should
be equated and
distinctions that must
be recognized.<span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in;background:white">As
part of our ongoing
efforts to improve
DDR’s accuracy, we are
reaching out again to
members of the rare
materials and archival
resources communities,
in particular, for
feedback on the
following questions:</p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<blockquote style="margin-left:30.0pt;margin-right:0in">
<ol start="1" type="1">
<li class="MsoNormal" style="background:white">Within
the context of the
materials cataloged by
your community, are
there dates other than
pre-1801 for most
resources and pre-1901
for cartographic
materials that would
make more sense as an
exemption cutoff?</li>
<li class="MsoNormal" style="background:white">The
current list of
Description Convention
Source Codes, found at
<a href="https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.loc.gov_standards_sourcelist_descriptive-2Dconventions.html&d=AwMGaQ&c=-dg2m7zWuuDZ0MUcV7Sdqw&r=t7GDkvcZa922K6iya7a6MxgVxxw7OjL0m1rPBXkflk4&m=kRqExyp5bTagfw4W-s3iO-qvtjTFj_59J74agId44nI&s=MJfHI5B_tV51Vx2wSKcLJQY4vkqu3ua9UEvXyUqqX8c&e=" target="_blank">
</a><a href="http://www.loc.gov/standards/sourcelist/descriptive-conventions.html" target="_blank">http://www.loc.gov/standards/sourcelist/descriptive-conventions.html</a>,
has grown much more
extensive in recent
years. Aside from the
four codes already
exempted ("bdrb",
"dcrb", "dcrmb”,
“dcrms”), are there
others that it would
make sense to consider
exempting? Note
that Description
Convention Source Codes
“appm”, “dacs”, “gihc”,
and “dcrmg” have already
been suggested for
adding to the exemption
list.
</li>
</ol>
<ol start="2" type="1">
<ol start="1" type="1">
<li class="MsoNormal" style="background:white">Are
there other
well-accepted rare
and/or archival
materials descriptive
standards that don’t
currently have their
own code, and so are
absent from the MARC
Code List? If so,
would the relevant
community be willing
to request codes from
LC?</li>
<li class="MsoNormal" style="background:white">How
faithfully do members
of the relevant
community actually
code such records in
field 040 subfield $e?</li>
</ol>
</ol>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"> </p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white">Please
reply either to the
list or to me
directly. We greatly
appreciate your
input.</p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white">Many
thanks— Jackie</p>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"> </p>
</div>
<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td style="width:100.0%;padding:0in 0in 0in 0in" valign="top" width="100%">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#333f48">-</span></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="width:100.0%;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in" valign="top" width="100%">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#333f48">Jackie Dooley</span></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in" valign="bottom">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#333f48">Program Officer, OCLC Research</span></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in" valign="bottom">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#333f48">647 Camino de los Mares, Suite 108-240</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#333f48">San Clemente, CA 92673</span></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in" valign="bottom">
<p class="MsoNormal">office/home
<a href="tel:949-492-5060" value="+19494925060" target="_blank">
949-492-5060</a><br>
mobile <a href="tel:949-295-1529" value="+19492951529" target="_blank">949-295-1529</a><br>
<a href="mailto:dooleyj@oclc.org" target="_blank"></a><a href="mailto:dooleyj@oclc.org" target="_blank">dooleyj@oclc.org</a></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="padding:6.0pt 0in 3.75pt 0in" valign="top">
<p class="MsoNormal"><a href="https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.oclc.org_home.en.html-3Fcmpid-3Demailsig-5Flogo&d=AwMGaQ&c=-dg2m7zWuuDZ0MUcV7Sdqw&r=t7GDkvcZa922K6iya7a6MxgVxxw7OjL0m1rPBXkflk4&m=kRqExyp5bTagfw4W-s3iO-qvtjTFj_59J74agId44nI&s=dnyUTanaqjBHSVV1FdTIEoNm6hDTbjlsRHIvE8OGviQ&e=" target="_blank"><span style="color:blue;text-decoration:none"><img src="http://www.oclc.org/content/dam/ext-ref/emailsignature/oclc-logo-emailsignature.png" alt="OCLC" height="42" border="0" width="118"></span></a></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="padding:0in 0in 4.5pt 0in" valign="top">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#2178b5"><a href="https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.oclc.org_home.en.html-3Fcmpid-3Demailsig-5Flink&d=AwMGaQ&c=-dg2m7zWuuDZ0MUcV7Sdqw&r=t7GDkvcZa922K6iya7a6MxgVxxw7OjL0m1rPBXkflk4&m=kRqExyp5bTagfw4W-s3iO-qvtjTFj_59J74agId44nI&s=TS_w0TQQ5p-iCY6URnpdmON9jBXJFIqhge-Llx6W-ms&e=" target="_blank"><span style="color:#2178b5;text-decoration:none">OCLC.org</span></a>/research</span></p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"> </p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div>
<div>
<blockquote style="margin-left:30.0pt;margin-right:0in">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"> </p>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</span>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
<br clear="all"><span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888">
<div><br>
</div>
-- <br>
<div>
<div dir="ltr">Kate S. Moriarty, MSW, MLS | Rare Book
Catalog Librarian | Associate Professor | Pius XII
Memorial Library | Room 320-2<br>
Saint Louis University | 3650 Lindell Blvd . | St. Louis,
MO 63108 | <a href="tel:%28314%29%20977-3024" value="+13149773024" target="_blank">(314) 977-3024</a> (tel) | <a href="tel:%28314%29%20977-3108" value="+13149773108" target="_blank">(314) 977-3108</a> (fax)
| <a href="mailto:moriarks@slu.edu" target="_blank">moriarks@slu.edu</a> | <a href="http://libraries.slu.edu/" target="_blank"></a><a href="http://libraries.slu.edu/" target="_blank">http://libraries.slu.edu/</a></div>
</div>
</font></span></div><span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888">
</font></span></blockquote><span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888">
<br>
<pre cols="72">
</pre>
</font></span></div></div></div><span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888">
</font></span></blockquote></div><span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><br><br clear="all"><div><br></div>-- <br><div><div dir="ltr">Kate S. Moriarty, MSW, MLS | Rare Book Catalog Librarian | Associate Professor | Pius XII Memorial Library | Room 320-2<br>Saint Louis University | 3650 Lindell Blvd . | St. Louis, MO 63108 | (314) 977-3024 (tel) | (314) 977-3108 (fax) | <a href="mailto:moriarks@slu.edu" target="_blank">moriarks@slu.edu</a> | <a href="http://libraries.slu.edu/" target="_blank">http://libraries.slu.edu/</a></div></div>
</font></span></div>
</blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><br>-- <br><div class="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr">Elizabeth O'Keefe<br>Director of Collection Information Systems<br>The Morgan Library & Museum<br>225 Madison Avenue<br>New York, NY 10016-3405<br> <br>TEL: 212 590-0380<br>FAX: 2127685680<br>NET: <a href="mailto:eokeefe@themorgan.org" target="_blank">eokeefe@themorgan.org</a><br><br>Visit CORSAIR, the Library's comprehensive collections catalog:<br><a href="http://corsair.themorgan.org" target="_blank">http://corsair.themorgan.org</a><br></div></div>
</div>