[DCRM-L] OCLC proposal

[Erin Blake]

Thanks, Annie and Manon! My only suggestion would be to replace “dcrm-“ with “dcrm[x]” in the title and body (so it more closely matches Glenn Patton’s quoted message) and spell out what is meant by “these letters” in the parenthetical remark.

In other words:  . . . “bdrb" or "dcrb" or "dcrm[x]“ (ie., any $e code beginning with the letters “dcrm”) . . .

   EB.

 

From: dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu [mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu] On Behalf Of Ann W. Copeland
Sent: Monday, February 07, 2011 1:56 PM
To: DCRM Revision Group List
Subject: Re: [DCRM-L] OCLC proposal

 

Thanks for you suggestions. We are now working with the following draft:




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

The RBMS Bibliographic Standards Committee officially requests that OCLC protect all items cataloged according to 040 $e "bdrb" or "dcrb" or "dcrm-“ (ie., any $e code beginning with these letters) from all automated mergers.  Because the DCRM suite of cataloging rules has been written to include materials from all periods, not just pre 1801 items, OCLC's current protection of pre-1801 records offers insufficient protection to the range of materials likely to be cataloged according to DCRM.    

Background information:

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 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."  

Discussion at the Bibliographic Standards Committee meeting in San Diego in January included accounts of catalogers reporting duplicate records for deletion. The rare book cataloging community will continue to report duplicates in this way. 














On 2/7/2011 12:43 PM, Manon Theroux wrote: 

Here are my suggestions, Annie:
 
-- make it clear in the Title that you're only talking about machine
mergers (not "any and all mergers")
-- make it clear what is meant by "dcrm-" (maybe by adding a
parenthetical such as "i.e., any subfield $e code beginning with the
letters dcrm"). Glenn probably knows what you mean but whoever he
hands it off to (the programmers) might not
-- put what the BSC is asking for in the *first* paragraph instead of
the last one; use language that actually does the asking rather than
saying the BSC "decided to ask"; label it as "Proposal" or
"Recommendation" or "Request" or some such thing
-- label the remaining paragraphs "Background Information" or something similar
 
Thanks for doing this!
 
Manon
 
On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 11:57 AM, Ann W. Copeland <auc1 at psu.edu> <mailto:auc1 at psu.edu>  wrote:
  

	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/20110207/7bf01815/attachment.htm