[DCRM-L] Question: Local notes in OCLC master records

Mon Nov 16 14:25:24 MST 2009

Getting back to the original question (and ignoring, for the moment, the 
subsequent OCLC-RLIN tangent), I agree with Richard. Copy-specific 
information is just that, copy-specific, and, as such, does not belong 
in the master record. The only exception is when that copy-specific 
information is used as the basis of  description in the record. But, 
using copy-specific information as the basis of description should only 
done with great caution and cataloger's judgment.

For example, an undated book with a manuscript inscription that at least 
puts the date of publication in the ballpark and can be used as the 
basis of a conjectural date should be included. However, the 
copy-specific information *must* be clearly identified by means of the $5.

260    ... ,$c [1910?] {/or/ [before 1910] /or/ [not after 1910]}
500    Date of publication conjectured from date of inscription in 
Bancroft Library copy. $5 CU-BANC

[Obviously, in the above example, the book would also have to exhibit 
other characteristics of the early 20th century in order to use an 
inscription as the basis of a date.]

Another example is when the description is based on an imperfect copy 
and the details of a perfect copy cannot be determined. The 
copy-specific imperfection should be noted, again with $5 (see DCRM(B) 
0B2.2).

Randy

Noble, Richard wrote:
>
> Quite simply, information that is inherently copy-specific, whether or 
> not of interest to researchers of whatever stripe, does not belong in 
> master records. Any record containing such information cannot be used 
> for copy cataloging by another institution without editing.
>
>  
>
> I hover in my own judgment about another class of phenomena: things 
> about one's own copy that are very possibly true of other, but not 
> necessarily all copies. In general this will mean noting a state in 
> some element of a copy that likely has a variant. The latest case---in 
> which I plumped for inclusion in a full collation note with appended 
> $5RPB---had to do with a sheet which had been perfected the wrong way 
> round. It is possible that ours was the sole copy exhibiting this 
> feature, but quite possible as well that it originated with incorrect 
> orientation of the heap of sheets to be perfected, a mistake which the 
> pressmen might well discover and rectify to get the remaining copies 
> right (without discarding the imperfectly perfected ones---it's too 
> expensive to throw away that much paper, and it might be impossible at 
> that stage to print more copies of the other forme without having to 
> re-set it). Such a note can be worded so as to fit comfortably as a 
> species of general information in any other record; of course, when I 
> can confirm variants from other copies, EEBO images, etc., it becomes 
> "some copies (e.g. ...)". I do not include such things in anything 
> other than quite detailed rare-book records in which such attention to 
> physical details is to be expected.
>
>  
>
> I am confident that Deborah is lining up her sights on me, having read 
> the preceding paragraph.
>
>  
>
> RICHARD NOBLE : RARE BOOKS CATALOGER : JOHN HAY LIBRARY : BROWN UNIVERSITY
> PROVIDENCE, RI 02912 : 401-863-1187/FAX 863-2093 : 
> RICHARD_NOBLE at BROWN.EDU
>
>  
>
>  
>
> *From:* dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu [mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu] 
> *On Behalf Of *Robert Maxwell
> *Sent:* Monday, November 16, 2009 2:11 PM
> *To:* DCRM Revision Group List
> *Subject:* Re: [DCRM-L] Question: Local notes in OCLC master records
>
>  
>
> I thought one of the reasons for creating the ability to have 
> institution records in OCLC was so that such notes could be recorded 
> in the institution record rather than the master record. I gather 
> putting such notes in the master record leaves them vulnerable to 
> deletion by later catalogers. At least we are advised on OCLC-CAT by 
> OCLC personnel that local information such as this found in master 
> records can be deleted.
>
>  
>
> 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
>
>  
>
> *From:* dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu [mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu] 
> *On Behalf Of *McCallum, Rebecca
> *Sent:* Monday, November 16, 2009 11:38 AM
> *To:* dcrm-l at lib.byu.edu
> *Subject:* [DCRM-L] Question: Local notes in OCLC master records
>
>  
>
> My colleagues and I are currently debating when to add copy-specific 
> local notes and related tracings to an OCLC master record, and when to 
> simply leave them in our local catalog only. 
>
>  
>
> At one end of the spectrum are notes that would definitely be of 
> interest to researchers searching in WorldCat (eg. "500 _ _ $a 
> Wesleyan copy: Heavily annotated and corrected by the author. $5 CtW"). 
>
>  
>
> At the other end of the spectrum are notes that would not be as useful 
> to those outside our institution (eg. "500 _ _ $a Wesleyan copy: From 
> the Kallir Family Collection, Given in Honor of Barbara Kallir (Class 
> of 1983). $5 CtW"). 
>
>  
>
> But what about cases in between?  We're trying to find a balance point 
> between providing useful information and avoiding cluttering up OCLC 
> records unnecessarily.
>
>  
>
> Do you have parameters for when to add a copy-specific note to an OCLC 
> master record?  If so, would you be willing to share those guidelines?
>
>  
>
> Thank you very much.
>
>  
>
> Rebecca McCallum
>
> Cataloging Librarian
>
> Wesleyan University
>
> 252 Church Street
>
> Middletown, CT  06459
>
> (860) 685-3839
>
> rmccallum at wesleyan.edu
>

-- 
__________________________
Randal Brandt
Principal Cataloger
The Bancroft Library
(510) 643-2275
rbrandt at library.berkeley.edu
http://bancroft.berkeley.edu
"It's hard enough to remember my opinions without 
remembering my reasons for them"--The Streets.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/attachments/20091116/96a62c93/attachment.htm 