<div dir="ltr">In this particular case, it appears I'm one of the culprits. I added the 655s with $5 NNC to the master record in error, and have just deleted them. I didn't touch those from other institutions, though. The $5 NNC 655s and the corresponding local notes and entries remain only in our local record.<div><br></div><div>The 700 02 appears to be a variant of the 240 (Sermones de sanctis vs. Sermones de sanctus); that wasn't my work. It appears I deleted it from our local copy when I exported it, but did not delete it from the master record.</div><div><br></div><div>To the bigger question, I generally avoid putting our local fields in the master record, but there have been many cases in which I have found local notes, access points, etc. in the record useful, e.g. when they identify variants in binding, note the presence of publisher's advertisements which may or may not be copy-specific, aid in judging the completeness of copies/sets, or justify/clarify some ambiguity or uncertainty, as opposed to wading through several institutions' OPACs to find the same.</div><div><br></div><div>I delete LC's 051s and 5xx, 6xx, 7xx fields with $5 of of other institutions locally, but I am wary of OCLC going through and deleting local fields from master records wholesale, or of catalogers deleting local fields input by other institutions in the master record. </div><div><br></div><div>Rather, I hope the institution has the opportunity to preserve any local data in IRs and in master records alike in LBD records. And/or, I would like to see OCLC add the option in the Connexion export settings (which can currently be set to delete certain fields by MARC tag on export), to also delete some or all fields if they contain $5 of other institutions on export, without deleting them from the master record.</div><div><br></div><div>Matt</div><div><br></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 1:11 PM, Harriett M Smith <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:harriett@uoregon.edu" target="_blank">harriett@uoregon.edu</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">The 700 has sanctus rather than sanctis...<br>
<br>
Harriett Smith<br>
<span class=""><br>
-----Original Message-----<br>
From: <a href="mailto:dcrm-l-bounces@lib.byu.edu">dcrm-l-bounces@lib.byu.edu</a> [mailto:<a href="mailto:dcrm-l-bounces@lib.byu.edu">dcrm-l-bounces@lib.<wbr>byu.edu</a>] On Behalf Of Noble, Richard<br>
</span><span class="">Sent: Thursday, October 27, 2016 7:29 AM<br>
To: DCRM Revision Group List <<a href="mailto:dcrm-l@lib.byu.edu">dcrm-l@lib.byu.edu</a>><br>
Subject: Re: [DCRM-L] What Belongs in a Master Record?<br>
<br>
</span><span class="">One other thing: What's with the doubling of the 100/240 with a 700 02?<br>
<br>
RICHARD NOBLE :: RARE MATERIALS CATALOGUER :: JOHN HAY LIBRARY<br>
BROWN UNIVERSITY :: PROVIDENCE, R.I. 02912 :: <a href="tel:401-863-1187" value="+14018631187">401-863-1187</a><br>
</span><Richard_Noble@Br <mailto:<a href="mailto:RICHARD_NOBLE@BROWN.EDU">RICHARD_NOBLE@BROWN.<wbr>EDU</a>> <a href="http://own.edu" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">own.edu</a> <<a href="http://own.edu" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://own.edu</a>> ><br>
<span class=""><br>
On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 10:22 AM, Noble, Richard <<a href="mailto:richard_noble@brown.edu">richard_noble@brown.edu</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:richard_noble@brown.edu">richard_noble@brown.<wbr>edu</a>> > wrote:<br>
<br>
<br>
I am thrashing about in the underbrush of OCLC records for incunabula, trying to create the occasional orderly clearing, but in the end I am wondering what special unwritten rules there are concerning master records that allow for such an omnium gatherum of copy-specific elements as OCLC #56414568 (LCCN 2004574211 with revisions by Detroit PL and Columbia).<br>
<br>
<br>
The information is interesting, no doubt of that; but there are facilities for accessing it in more coherent form by way of the institutional catalogs to which OCLC provides relatively easy access. I certainly don't want most of it in my own institution's record (though it will be worth noting that the Brown and the LC copies both have a Buxheim stamp).<br>
<br>
<br>
Would I be justified in updating this record in part to delete all copy-specific that has no bearing on identification of, or actual variation in copies of, the manifestation? This question often arises in connection with LC-based records, of course, but lots of libraries do this sort of thing, even adding copy-specific information to the OCLC record rather than making local edits. Is this just shared cataloging with a vengeance?<br>
<br>
<br>
RICHARD NOBLE :: RARE MATERIALS CATALOGUER :: JOHN HAY LIBRARY<br>
</span> BROWN UNIVERSITY :: PROVIDENCE, R.I. 02912 :: <a href="tel:401-863-1187" value="+14018631187">401-863-1187</a> <tel:<a href="tel:401-863-1187" value="+14018631187">401-863-1187</a>><br>
<Richard_Noble@Br <mailto:<a href="mailto:RICHARD_NOBLE@BROWN.EDU">RICHARD_NOBLE@BROWN.<wbr>EDU</a>> <a href="http://own.edu" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">own.edu</a> <<a href="http://own.edu" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://own.edu</a>> ><br>
<br>
<br>
</blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><div><br></div>-- <br><div class="gmail_signature" data-smartmail="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><pre cols="72">-- <br>Matthew C. Haugen<br>Rare Book Cataloger<br>102 Butler Library<br>Columbia University Libraries<br>E-mail: <a href="mailto:matthew.haugen@columbia.edu" target="_blank">matthew.haugen@columbia.edu</a><br>Phone: 212-851-2451</pre>
</div></div>
</div>