[DCRM-L] OCLC proposal

[Randal Brandt]

And, would it be OK to silently correct Glenn Patton's original email to 
read "... 'dcr*m*[x]' code and its predecessor codes"? He did write 
"dcrb[x]," but he *meant* "dcrm[x]".

Randy

On 2/7/2011 11:02 AM, Erin Blake wrote:
>
> 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.
>
>       
>
>       
>
>       
>
>          
>
>   
>   
>    

-- 
__________________________
Randal Brandt
Principal Cataloger
The Bancroft Library
(510) 643-2275
rbrandt at library.berkeley.edu
http://bancroft.berkeley.edu
"It's hard enough to remember my opinions without
remembering my reasons for them"--The Streets.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/attachments/20110207/738fcad2/attachment.htm