[DCRM-L] OCLC proposal

[Deborah J. Leslie]

Annie, it looks good to me. Thanks.

 

From: dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu [mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu] On Behalf Of Ann W. Copeland
Sent: Monday, 07 February, 2011 11:57
To: DCRM Revision Group List
Subject: [DCRM-L] OCLC proposal

 

At the Bibliographic Standards Committee meeting in San Diego, I offered to draft a proposal to OCLC to omit all dcrm, dcrb and bdrb records from automatic deduping.  Here is a draft - please send comments. Thank you, Annie


Request to OCLC to protect records coded 040 $e "bdrb" or "dcrb" or "dcrm-" 
from any and all mergers. 

In Jan. 2010, OCLC began running duplicate detection software which allows for machine matches and mergers. OCLC’s Cataloging Defensively Webinar, "When to Input a New Record in the Age of DDR," encouraged catalogers to supply edition statements in square brackets when there are true differences between bibliographic entities that would be matched and merged in the absence of the MARC 250.   

DCRM(B) and DCRM(S) rules, however, do not allow catalogers to supply an edition statement. The area is a transcription area only. In addition, trying to devise an edition statement when one is not there is also extremely problematic, especially in the case of concealed editions - closely similar editions printed from substantially different settings of type - which are not distinguished as such by the printer and/or publisher but require separate records. 
  
In a message from Glenn Patton forwarded to the dcrm-l email list by Jackie Dooley on May 20, 2010, he assured us that :

“OCLC’s Duplicate Detection and Resolution software (DDR) does not merge records if one of the imprint dates is pre-1800, nor would OCLC staff merge records in this situation unless it were absolutely clear that the records represented the same item (but we would be willing to work with someone who had gone through the effort of working out which were true duplicates and which weren’t). While the matching software used to load records prepared in external systems into WorldCat is very similar to that used in DDR, it does not include the pre-1800 exclusion.  We could consider some more complex exclusions that would be based on the 040 $e coding (e.g., exclude all with a ‘dcrb[x]’ code and  its predecessor codes) if the rare book community felt this would be desirable…  It would be useful to carry forward this discussion with the rare book community.  Nobody wants to play “fast and loose” with record merging, but, on the other hand, I don’t think people really want a situation where there’s no attempt to match at all."  

At ALA Midwinter 2011, the RBMS Bibliographic Standards Committee decided to ask OCLC to protect all items cataloged according to 040 ‡e "bdrb" or "dcrb" or "dcrm-“ from machine mergers. Because the DCRM suite of cataloging rules has been written to include materials from all periods, not just pre 1801 items, OCLC's protection of pre-1801 records offers insufficient protection to the range of materials likely to be cataloged according to DCRM.   



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/attachments/20110207/a28f765a/attachment.htm