[DCRM-L] "Private" fields in OCLC

[Elizabeth O'Keefe]

We were unaware of this decision, and find it equally troubling. We don't make much use of the 590 or the 583, but we use the 541 and 561 extensively for local (not private) information. We would hate for this information, especially the provenance information, but the donor information is important, too, to be hidden from OCLC users who view our institutional records.
 
I attended the MARBI meeting in January 2004 where Proposal 2004-03, Designating the Privacy of Fields 541, 561 and 583 in the MARC 21 Bibliographic and Holdings Formats, was discussed. I agree with Bob, it was my sense, too, that institutions that cared about privacy would take affirmative action to supply the correct indicator. From the proposal: "The burden is on the sender to filter out private information when sharing records with others." From the minutes of the MARBI January 2004 meeting: "Adam Schiff (ALCTS) stated that blank (#) (no information provided) is necessary for it is what the existing data has in it. Plus, institutions that do not care whether users view the information would code the indicator position blank (#)."  This is why we continued to code the indicator as blank in records created after the new indicator was adopted (foolish of us, but the records created post 2004 are a drop in the bucket compared to the pre-existing records). 
 
Elizabeth O'Keefe
 
 
 
Proposal 2004-03: 
>>> robert_maxwell at byu.edu 12/11/2007 10:55 AM >>>

I understand a group called “The RLG Union Catalog Advisory Committee” has discussed the issue of private information in local records with OCLC and has “ratified” the following decision. I may be totally out of the loop, but I hadn’t heard a whisper about it and thought maybe you all hadn’t either. I am certain it was not discussed on this rare cataloging discussion list, at any rate, and it does affect us. It appears that this Committee wanted to ensure that “.” By “private” I assume things like donors, prices paid, etc., is meant. Four fields were discussed: 541, 561, 583, and 590 The Committee decided that in OCLC, the first indicator in any of these field must be coded “1”  for the field to display. In other words, if the indicator is coded “blank” or “0” the field will not display. (In the MARC format documentation for 541, 461, and 583, “0” means private, “1” means not private, “blank” means no information provided. No such coding is defined for 590.) I am particularly concerned about this decision with respect to 590, and also to some extent about 561. It appears that (nonstandard) indicators 1 and 0 have been available for some time in OCLC for 590, but to my knowledge they were never so defined in RLIN, and so no 590s coming from RLIN libraries will be so coded. Therefore by fiat none of the 590s currently in RLIN-originated records, and probably in most OCLC-originated records (I’d be interested in hearing from OCLC catalogers if they used these indicators), will display. Wasn’t that one of the major points about RLG libraries wanting the institution records, that the local information would display? This action will defeat that purpose for the majority of records. I am not in favor of “opt in” for 590, in other words, you have to manually insert an indicator or it will not display. It seems to me that if anyone has actually put private information in a 590 (something I would never do in my own cataloging), the burden should be on them to use this indicator to indicate a desire that the information NOT display, not the other way around. In my opinion, blank should not trigger non-display. I also think the same thing about 561. 561 is not used for the immediate source of acquisition, but for the custodial history of the item, something that in most cases is not “private” in the sense that we want to protect donors or hide how much we paid for the item or whatever. In this case, too, I feel that the burden should be on the cataloger to say they do NOT want the field displayed, not on the rest of us to say we DO want the field to display. I feel less strongly about 583 and 541, but do hold the same opinion about them. Anyway, though it may be after the fact, I thought this deserved discussion here. Thanks,Bob Robert L. Maxwell
Special Collections and Ancient Languages Catalog Librarian
Genre/Form Authorities Librarian
6728 Harold B. Lee Library
Brigham Young University
Provo, UT 84602
(801)422-5568 


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/attachments/20071211/be8e9b1a/attachment.htm