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

[Deborah J. Leslie]

Interesting discussion. I agree with John here, and like Jane we put our
copy-specific notes in field 852. Now if only we could get local systems
to allow us to put all copy-specific headings in the holdings record for
a particular copy, think how wonderfully that would clarify search
results! 

 

From: dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu [mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu] On
Behalf Of John Lancaster
Sent: Monday, 16 November, 2009 16:37
To: DCRM Revision Group List
Subject: RE: [DCRM-L] Question: Local notes in OCLC master records

 

What's really needed is for the "master" record to be the bibliographic
record, which could be enhanced by anyone, as long as what was added was
bibliographical information about the edition (issue, printing, etc. -
whatever level of difference is allowed), with all copy-specific
information in separate holdings records that are accessible to all, not
just to the holding library.  Is this not the way some thinking is
going, about future record structures?

 

That doesn't change the fact that, as Richard points out, there will
always be a gray area, containing things that might be unique but might
also be pertinent to a subset of all copies of an edition (issue,
printing, etc.).  If we could all see holdings records (aka local
notes), such information could be treated as local until proven
otherwise.

 

John Lancaster (jlancaster at amherst.edu)

 

________________________________

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/attachments/20091117/bf386a3a/attachment.htm