[DCRM-L] OCLC proposal

[Margaret F Nichols]

The text with Erin's suggested revision looks great to me. 


Margaret

Margaret Nichols
Rare Materials Cataloging Coordinator
Cataloging & Metadata Services in RMC
2B Kroch Library
Cornell University
Ithaca, NY 14853-5302
Tel. (607) 255-3530 / (607) 255-5752
E-mail mnr1 at cornell.edu
________________________________________
From: dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu [dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu] On Behalf Of Erin Blake [EBlake at FOLGER.edu]
Sent: Monday, February 07, 2011 2:02 PM
To: DCRM Revision Group List
Subject: Re: [DCRM-L] OCLC proposal

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.