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

[Dooley,Jackie]

Big questions acout which, IMHO, Bib Standards oughta have discussions. -Jackie

 

From: dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu [mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu] On Behalf Of Deborah J. Leslie
Sent: Wednesday, November 03, 2010 7:35 AM
To: DCRM Revision Group List
Subject: Re: [DCRM-L] OCLC de-duping algorithms and dates of publication

 

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/20101103/16c0fb30/attachment.htm