[DCRM-L] OCLC de-duping algorithms and dates of publication

[Ann W. Copeland]

Actually, there probably aren't DCRM records for much of what exists in 
the database. So maybe just as well. Clever searching is probably best. 
Thanks, Annie

On 11/3/2010 10:34 AM, Deborah J. Leslie wrote:
>
> Thanks for Annie’s comment. I have mixed feelings about the no 
> de-duping of pre-1801 publications. Would OCLC really give preference 
> to dcrm records if they were to de-dupe? Even over pcc records?
>
> __________________________________________
>
> Deborah J. Leslie, M.A., M.L.S.
>
> RBMS past chair 2010-2011 | Head of Cataloging, Folger Shakespeare Library
>
> 201 East Capitol St., S.E., Washington, D.C. 20003 | 202.675-0369 
> (phone)  202.675-0328 (fax) | djleslie at folger.edu  | www.folger.edu
>
> *From:* dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu [mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu] 
> *On Behalf Of *ANN W. COPELAND
> *Sent:* Tuesday, 02 November, 2010 22:45
> *To:* Erin Blake
> *Cc:* DCRM Revision Group List
> *Subject:* Re: [DCRM-L] OCLC de-duping algorithms and dates of publication
>
> Interestingly, when we asked about permissible duplicates (one DCRM, 
> one AACR2) OCLC said they did NOT want duplicate records. Instead they 
> wanted to merge records with the DCRM record surviving as the master 
> record. So, why exempt pre-1800 books from the de-duping? Why not work 
> the algorithm to favor DCRM?
>
> Thanks, Annie
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/attachments/20101103/7745756b/attachment.htm