[DCRM-L] FW: OCLC matching/merging question for BIBCO: place of publication
Will Evans
evans at bostonathenaeum.org
Tue Nov 12 12:37:03 MST 2013
I’ll echo the chorus of those calling for option A, continuation of the
current policy. Perhaps a more relevant example than Harry Potter might be
the not uncommon practice of some private presses that issue deluxe and
trade edition sometimes without an explicit edition statement. Therefore,
the respective records would have the same place of publication, publisher,
and likely the same title, but the extent and content would be different.
OCLC statements such as “end users really don’t care about these
distinctions” puzzle and frighten me. To combat their ignorance I’ve become
increasingly defensive in my cataloging by coding every master record that
I upgrade and every original record I enter as “dcrmb” even if the item is
only medium rare. I figure the next cataloger can remove anything they
consider extraneous. At least those that do care about these distinctions
can benefit from human endeavor and not be perplexed a hatchet job
performed by a computer algorithm.
Best,
Will
*~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~*
Will Evans
Chief Rare Materials Catalog Librarian
Library of the Boston Athenaeum
10 1/2 Beacon Street
Boston, MA 02108
Tel: 617-227-0270 ext. 224
Fax: 617-227-5266
www.bostonathenaeum.org
*From:* dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu [mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu] *On
Behalf Of *Lapka, Francis
*Sent:* Tuesday, November 12, 2013 1:30 PM
*To:* DCRM Users' Group
*Subject:* Re: [DCRM-L] FW: OCLC matching/merging question for BIBCO: place
of publication
On a related note, for those not subscribed to the BIBCO listserv:
*From:* Program for Cooperative Cataloging
[mailto:BIBCO at LISTSERV.LOC.GOV<BIBCO at LISTSERV.LOC.GOV>]
*On Behalf Of *Trumble, Bruce
*Sent:* Tuesday, November 12, 2013 11:34 AM
*To:* BIBCO at LISTSERV.LOC.GOV
*Subject:* Re: [BIBCO] OCLC matching/merging question for BIBCO: place of
publication
Hi Cynthia,
I’m forwarding this message on behalf of some Harvard Colleagues.
Bruce
Cynthia – Thank you for sending out to various listservs the announcement
about proposed changes in OCLC’s policy relating to place of publication
and matching records. We catalogers at Houghton Library (the main special
collections library at Harvard University) feel strongly that policy should
not be changed. The place of printing is far too important to records
treated by special collections catalogers to chance losing information or
creating misinformation through computer matching. When it comes to special
collections records, there are just too many variations in records to
create uniform algorithms. As we are sure you have heard from other special
collections catalogers, great numbers of records for “rare” material are
not coded in the 040 as being cataloged using any particular set of rules.
To use a record’s dates as the determining factor is impossible for this
reason as well as the fact that many newer materials are now cataloged
using rare book cataloging standards. Additionally, what is not considered
rare today, may well be considered so in the future. We cannot chance the
fact that a book with the imprint "Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar, [2013]"
is the same as one with "Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 2013" and "Northampton,
Mass.: E. Elgar Pub., 2013" when the possibility is just as likely that
they are different. In your email, you suggest that "end users really don’t
care about these distinctions when it comes to obtaining the content and
find the multiple records confusing" – that is simply not true of the many
scholars doing historical research on a wide array of topics, many of which
extend into the 21st century.
Thank you for giving us the opportunity to voice our opinion.
Karen Nipps
Head, Rare Book Team
Houghton Library
*From:* dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu
[mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu<dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu>]
*On Behalf Of *Manon Theroux
*Sent:* Tuesday, November 12, 2013 1:16 PM
*To:* DCRM Users' Group
*Subject:* Re: [DCRM-L] FW: OCLC matching/merging question for BIBCO: place
of publication
I suggest "in a 26X field" or "in a 260 or 264 field" rather than "in a
260".
The response only addresses merging of records. Should it also address
"when to input a new record" since that will also be affected?
The response doesn't really acknowledge that the proposed changes won't
apply in EVERY situation when there is a difference in the recorded place
of publication. If there are other differences (e.g. publisher name,
edition statement, etc.), these will also be taken into account when
deciding whether to merge the record (or input a new record). So, the Harry
Potter example might not be an especially good one. Although the text
varies considerably between the British and American editions, so does the
publisher (and sometimes even the title), thus these records would not get
merged simply because their place of publication differs. A more effective
example would involve materials where the ONLY distinguishing difference is
the place of publication.
The response assumes that OCLC knows what the "DCRM list" and the "DCRM
community" means. Is a little more formality in order to explain what these
things mean (even if it's just as a courtesy)?
The original query was addressed to the PCC BIBCO discussion list. How many
special collections libraries are contributing BIBCO records and should the
response highlight them in any way?
Would something from the RBMS Bibliographic Standards Committee carry more
weight than something from the "DCRM community"?
I realize it is easier to ask questions than answer them!
Manon
--
Manon Théroux
Head of Technical Services
U.S. Senate Library
SR-B15 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510-7112
202-224-3833 (phone)
202-224-0879 (fax)
manon_theroux at sec.senate.gov
On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 12:02 PM, ANN W. COPELAND <auc1 at psu.edu> wrote:
All,
I've composed a short response cribbing from everyone's messages. Please
feel free to edit - if I hear nothing, I will send to Cynthia on Friday.
Thanks, Annie
Dear Cynthia,
Thank you for consulting BIBCO members about this important discussion.
Francis Lapka posed your questions to the DCRM listserv and there were
several comments mostly related to the potential (and worrisome) merger of
records with different places of publication.
We have a preference for: A) Continue with the current policy, and require
different WorldCat records for different places of publication.
The reasoning has to do with the fact that many of our Special Collections
records are not coded as bdrb, dcrb or dcrm[x] and fall after the cut-off
date to be considered rare (1830). For instance, The Folger Library has
materials in their vaults related to Shakespeare from Shakespeare’s time up
to the present. Americana collections of any depth will not be protected by
the 1830 cut-off date.
The place of publication signals a particular manifestation and we would
not want those records to be merged based on the assumption that the
recording of place in a 260 was done based on changing rules or on
cataloger’s judgment.
Editions published in different places really can be different editions.
They may have many textual differences that are not indicated at all on the
title page. The difference in imprint may be the only clue in the catalog
record that they are not the same text.
Consider, for example, the Harry Potter books. These editions were very
different based on whether they were published in the UK or in the US.
Again, thank you for including us in your conversation,
DCRM community
------------------------------
*From: *"Francis Lapka" <francis.lapka at yale.edu>
*To: *"DCRM Users' Group" <dcrm-l at lib.byu.edu>
*Sent: *Tuesday, November 12, 2013 9:36:52 AM
*Subject: *Re: [DCRM-L] FW: OCLC matching/merging question
for BIBCO: place of publication
I’m leaving town in 24 hours, so I’d prefer to defer to someone else.
Francis
*From:* dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu [mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu] *On
Behalf Of *ANN W. COPELAND
*Sent:* Tuesday, November 12, 2013 9:16 AM
*To:* DCRM Users' Group
*Subject:* Re: [DCRM-L] FW: OCLC matching/merging question for BIBCO: place
of publication
Yes, I do think it would be worth making a response, especially since they
are asking. Francis, are you willing to pull from the messages below and
draft something this week?
Annie Copeland
Penn State
------------------------------
*From: *"Francis Lapka" <francis.lapka at yale.edu>
*To: *"DCRM Users' Group" <dcrm-l at lib.byu.edu>
*Sent: *Monday, November 11, 2013 4:22:48 PM
*Subject: *Re: [DCRM-L] FW: OCLC matching/merging question for BIBCO:
place of publication
Cynthia Whitacre (OCLC) asked for comments by November 15. Is this issue
of sufficient concern to merit a collective (RBMS?) response?
Francis
*From:* dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu
[mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu<dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu>]
*On Behalf Of *Noble, Richard
*Sent:* Friday, November 01, 2013 5:01 PM
*To:* DCRM Users' Group
*Subject:* Re: [DCRM-L] FW: OCLC matching/merging question for BIBCO: place
of publication
Re Erin's post below and OCLC's remark: "
In the past, when the same content was published in two countries (UK
publication and US publication for example), it often came out at different
times and may have had bibliographic significance. We are not so certain
that is the case today."
Though the dcrm... codes may mean what they mean, might it not be possible,
given the close correspondence of full rda and DCRM treatment, to invoke
the code as protection from unwarranted conflation--as if what it actually
signifies is "We mean *this* manifestation, not *that* one, darn it!"
It can be significant even with popular titles. Think of the silent editing
that sometimes goes on between UK and US editions--e.g. most famously, in
recent times, editions of the Harry Potter books. OCLC love lowering their
expectations of users, as an opportunity to coarsen the database that
*claims* to be a "World"Cat. If you think you know what they want, why
should they know otherwise?
RICHARD NOBLE :: RARE MATERIALS CATALOGUER :: JOHN HAY LIBRARY
BROWN UNIVERSITY :: PROVIDENCE, R.I. 02912 :: 401-863-1187
<Richard_Noble at Br <RICHARD_NOBLE at BROWN.EDU>own.edu>
On Fri, Nov 1, 2013 at 4:01 PM, Erin Blake <EBlake at folger.edu> wrote:
Same here (though I'm at home with a cold, so this is only my opinion:
haven't canvassed the rest of the Folger). It's not the "rare" that makes
precision important for our post-1830 material, it's the "special" -- for
example, we have Shakespeare's dog : a novel / by Leon Rooke in the vault
even though it's a popular novel first published in 1983. It's the Folger's
mission to preserve and provide scholarly access to material from
Shakespeare's era and Shakespeare-related material to the present day.
Because RDA does away with AACR2's mandatory abbreviations and silent
omissions, we're comfortable using it instead of dcrmb for mass-produced
books, but it does mean that we'll be using a code that would not signal
"rare" to OCLC.
Erin.
----------------
Erin C. Blake, Ph.D. | Interim Head of Collection Information Services
and Cataloging | Folger Shakespeare Library | 201 E. Capitol St. SE,
Washington, DC, 20009 | eblake at folger.edu | office tel. +1
202-675-0323 | fax +1
202-675-0328 | www.folger.edu
*From:* dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu
[mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu<dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu>]
*On Behalf Of *Sprochi, Amanda K.
*Sent:* Friday, November 01, 2013 1:39 PM
*To:* DCRM Users' Group
*Subject:* Re: [DCRM-L] FW: OCLC matching/merging question for BIBCO: place
of publication
I would agree. Also, the 1830 cut off date does not reflect Americana.
New records here for rare materials will have the correct $e for rare
materials cataloging but our older records certainly don’t and we wouldn’t
want those merged in OCLC under the rules proposed here.
aks
Amanda K. Sprochi
Health Sciences Cataloger
J. Otto Lottes Health Sciences Library
106 HSL
1 Hospital Dr.
Columbia, MO 65212
(573) 882-0461
sprochia at health.missouri.edu<https://mail.umsystem.edu/owa/redir.aspx?C=aafaFEkPV0OTrJpeJzmhM857Owq9T9AIHDnpKT52OGrQCzbxtOI4FdaFyt6P_RfGRg-ypRZ411A.&URL=mailto%3asprochia%40health.missouri.edu>
*From:* dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu
[mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu<dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu>]
*On Behalf Of *Margaret F. Nichols
*Sent:* Friday, November 01, 2013 11:19 AM
*To:* DCRM Users' Group
*Subject:* Re: [DCRM-L] FW: OCLC matching/merging question for BIBCO: place
of publication
FWIW: my supervisor in the Library’s cataloging dept. asked for feedback on
this thread, so here’s what I wrote:
My own preference would be for option A) (continuing with the current
policy). The distinction between “rare” and “non-rare” materials is a
slippery one, since as time goes on, materials that are not currently
considered rare will become rare. Also, there are plenty of works that are
post-1830 and may not have been cataloged using rare book rules (so they
don’t have 040 $e bdrb, dcrb, or dcrmb), but that are of great rarity
and/or historical significance, so that the distinction between editions
published in different places will still matter very much to a lot of
researchers. One example might be different editions of Joyce’s Ulysses.
Another consideration is that editions published in different places really
are different editions. They may have many textual differences that are not
indicated at all on the title page. The difference in imprint may be the
only clue in the catalog record that they are not the same text.
I don’t feel confident about rendering a verdict concerning e-resources,
but I do think that the argument that their place of publication should be
disregarded because “Records for remote electronic resources, are often
created by content providers through automated means, and careful checking
of the actual publication is often not done; thus the accuracy of place of
publication may be meaningless in many records for electronic resources” is
weak. If the content providers are sloppy about place of publication,
that’s a good reason for them to clean up their act, not a good reason for
us to muck things up further by ignoring place of publication altogether.
My two cents,
Margaret
___________________________________
Margaret F. Nichols
Rare Materials Cataloging Coordinator
Cataloging & Metadata Services in RMC
2B Kroch Library
Cornell University
Ithaca, NY 14853-5302
Tel. (607) 255-3530 * E-mail mnr1 at cornell.edu
*From:* Sotelo, Aislinn [mailto:asotelo at ucsd.edu <asotelo at ucsd.edu>]
*Sent:* Thursday, October 31, 2013 6:37 PM
*To:* DCRM Revision Group List (dcrm-l at lib.byu.edu)
*Subject:* [DCRM-L] FW: OCLC matching/merging question for BIBCO: place of
publication
See the below messages.
I had the same question as Francis when I saw this message and I’m
interested to hear other people’s thoughts about this.
I know that at my institution many of our Special Collections records are
not coded as bdrb, dcrb or dcrm[x] and fall after the cut-off date to be
considered rare, yet records that accurately represent their publication
information is nonetheless important.
Aislinn
*Aislinn Sotelo*
Head, Special Collections Technical Services |The Library | UC San Diego | (
858-534-6766 | * asotelo at ucsd.edu
*From:* Program for Cooperative Cataloging
[mailto:BIBCO at LISTSERV.LOC.GOV<BIBCO at LISTSERV.LOC.GOV>]
*On Behalf Of *Whitacre,Cynthia
*Sent:* Tuesday, October 29, 2013 10:31 AM
*To:* BIBCO at LISTSERV.LOC.GOV
*Subject:* Re: [BIBCO] OCLC matching/merging question for BIBCO: place of
publication
Hello Francis:
That’s an excellent question.
Currently we protect and do not merge based on both date of publication
criteria and/or coding in the 040 subfield e to define “rare”.
Dates:
For cartographic materials, anything pre-1900 is considered rare (based on
the recommendation of MAGIRT).
For all other materials, it is pre-1830.
The codes in 040 subfield e that would prevent us from merging are:
bdrb or dcrb or dcrm[x] (i.e., any $e code beginning with the letters dcrm)
We’d welcome input on this criteria also. If there are other codes we
ought to add to this list to define “rare”, please let us know!
Cynthia
Cynthia M. Whitacre
Manager, WorldCat Quality & Partner Content Dept.
OCLC
800-848-5878, ext. 6183
whitacrc at oclc.org
*From:* Lapka, Francis [mailto:francis.lapka at yale.edu<francis.lapka at yale.edu>]
*Sent:* Tuesday, October 29, 2013 11:25 AM
*To:* Program for Cooperative Cataloging
*Cc:* Whitacre,Cynthia
*Subject:* RE: OCLC matching/merging question for BIBCO: place of
publication
Cynthia,
As you note, “Distinctions like this will continue to matter for rare books.”
For option B—Modify the current policy to allow the merging of records (and
matching of records) with different places of publication for *non-rare
materials* if everything else matches)—how would OCLC define “non-rare
materials”?
Thanks,
Francis
_________________________________
*Francis Lapka, Catalog Librarian*
Yale Center for British Art, Department of Rare Books and Manuscripts
1080 Chapel Street, PO Box 208280, New Haven, CT 06520
203.432.9672 francis.lapka at yale.edu
Please note: The Study Room is closed due to the Center’s refurbishment
project, and access to the collections is limited and by appointment only.
Requests for materials from Prints and Drawings and Rare Books and
Manuscripts should be made at least two weeks in advance by e-mailing
ycba.prints at yale.edu. It is expected that normal services in the Study Room
will resume in early January 2014.
*From:* Program for Cooperative Cataloging
[mailto:BIBCO at LISTSERV.LOC.GOV<BIBCO at LISTSERV.LOC.GOV>]
*On Behalf Of *Whitacre,Cynthia
*Sent:* Tuesday, October 29, 2013 9:57 AM
*To:* BIBCO at LISTSERV.LOC.GOV
*Subject:* [BIBCO] OCLC matching/merging question for BIBCO: place of
publication
Hello BIBCO Colleagues:
This is an admittedly long message, but please read all of it, as your
opinion and thoughts are requested.
OCLC is contemplating making a change in our “when to input a new record”
standards as published in Bibliographic Formats and Standards Chapter 4, as
well as in our internal merging standards for what is considered a
duplicate. We’d like your help in reaching a decision. The element in
question is the place of publication.
Currently in Chapter 4 of BFAS (http://www.oclc.org/bibformats/en/input.html)
under 260 subfield a (we know we need to add 264 to this) we list some
instances where minor differences in place are acceptable for considering
the records to be the same. However, the basic statement says that
“differences in the place of publication justify a new record.”
One of the reasons we have traditionally NOT merged “duplicate” records
when everything else is the same is when place of publication differs.
Here is what our current internal merge instructions say:
*260*
Subfield $a guidelines
· Records may be considered duplicates for merge even with the
absence or presence of the subfield a.
· Always match 1st place of publication.
Examples:
· New York matches New York, Toronto
· London, Orlando matches London, Toronto
· New York does *not* match Toronto, New York
· New York, Bombay does *not* match Bombay, New York
*Note:* Places of publication within the same country are considered a
match and justify a merge.
· New York, Chicago matches Chicago, New York
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
For example, look at these 3 publication statements from 3 WorldCat records
for the same title:
264 1 Cheltenham, UK : ǂb Edward Elgar, ǂc [2013]
260 Cheltenham : ǂb Edward Elgar, ǂc 2013.
260 Northampton, Mass. : ǂb E. Elgar Pub., ǂc 2013.
Under our current OCLC criteria for place, we would merge the first two but
not the third (assuming everything else matched).
Looking at the cataloging codes, here’s what *AACR2* says:
*1.4C5.* If two or more places in which a publisher, distributor, etc., has
offices are named in the item, give the first named place. Give any
subsequently named place that is given prominence by the layout or
typography of the source of information. If the first named place and any
place given prominence are not in the home country of the cataloguing
agency, give also the first of any subsequently named places that is in the
home country. Omit all other places.
[image: cid:image001.jpg at 01CED0C8.CB70D890]
And,* RDA *says:
2.8.2.4
More Than One Place of Publication
If more than one place of publication is named on the source of
information, record the place names in the order indicated by the sequence,
layout, or typography of the names on the source of information.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Our thinking, in random order:
· It has always seemed that cataloger’s judgment is at play
regarding what gets recorded, no matter which code is in use.
· RDA gives a bit more leeway than AACR2. In our discussions, we
are of two minds regarding this.
· In the past, when the same content was published in two countries
(UK publication and US publication for example), it often came out at
different times and may have had bibliographic significance. We are not so
certain that is the case today.
· Many reported duplicates and perceived duplicates exist in
WorldCat because of the policy of not matching places of publication in
different countries when everything else matches.
· End users really don’t care about these distinctions when it
comes to obtaining the content and find the multiple records confusing
· Records for remote electronic resources, are often created by
content providers through automated means, and careful checking of the
actual publication is often not done; thus the accuracy of place of
publication may be meaningless in many records for electronic resources.
· Distinctions like this will continue to matter for rare books.
So, we are left with some choices:
A) Continue with the current policy, and require different WorldCat records
for different places of publication
B) Modify the current policy to allow the merging of records (and matching
of records) with different places of publication for non-rare materials if
everything else matches.
C) Stick with the current policy for tangible resources, but allow
matching/merging of records for different places of publication for records
for remotely-accessed resources only.
D) Another alternative entirely; suggestions welcome!
We would welcome discussion and input on this matter. Which of the
choices, A, B, or C do you prefer? If you prefer D, please suggest the
alternative that you have in mind. We have asked BIBCO colleagues, since
we believe this is a larger issue with records for monographic materials
rather than with records for continuing resources. Please share your
thoughts on the BIBCO list. If you prefer to send a message directly to
OCLC, send it to askqc at oclc.org, as that will go to the appropriate
people. We welcome comments through November 15, as we will be discussing
this again at OCLC the week of November 18 to try to reach a decision.
Thank you!
Cynthia M. Whitacre
Manager, WorldCat Quality & Partner Content Dept.
OCLC
800-848-5878, ext. 6183
whitacrc at oclc.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/attachments/20131112/e184cee0/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 39814 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/attachments/20131112/e184cee0/attachment-0001.jpg>
More information about the DCRM-L
mailing list