[DCRM-L] Shares citation but varies from PDF

Wed Mar 5 14:27:02 MST 2014

This topic was broached at a TSDG a year or two ago, in which those present agreed that a new record should be made when an existing OCLC master record does not distinguish between two or more known different editions.

Deborah J. Leslie | Folger Shakespeare Library | djleslie@ folger.edu | 202.675-0369 | 201 East Capitol St., SE, Washington, DC 20001 | www. folger.edu

From: dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu [mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu] On Behalf Of Noble, Richard
Sent: Thursday, 30 January 2014 11:54
To: DCRM Users' Group
Subject: Re: [DCRM-L] Shares citation but varies from PDF

Yes, I agree with Elaine, who has generously described the best procedure, including accommodation to the vagaries of the WorldCat (which is not to be easily herded). In a few cases I've done this, with a note that explicitly states "This record represents two editions, printed from different settings of type. ... [details]".

RICHARD NOBLE :: RARE MATERIALS CATALOGUER :: JOHN HAY LIBRARY
BROWN UNIVERSITY  ::  PROVIDENCE, R.I. 02912  ::  401-863-1187
<Richard_Noble at Br<mailto:RICHARD_NOBLE at BROWN.EDU>own.edu<http://own.edu>>

On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 11:27 AM, Shiner, Elaine <eshiner at fas.harvard.edu<mailto:eshiner at fas.harvard.edu>> wrote:
Yes, I agree with Richard.  At the very least, describe both variants [and then identify which variant this record represents].  I actually wouldn’t make a duplicate OCLC record in this case, for several reasons, but mainly because I can’t believe that all or even most OCLC users will have the knowledge or take the time to notice and match to the right record. In this case, since neither record is coded dcrmb, I think the records will merge at some point. (True?)  If you are not cataloging in dcrmb, with accurate pagination and including a signature statement, I think it creates more problems than it solves to create a new OCLC record for a variant.  Ideally, you should go back to #222640157 and add a similar note to that master record describing both variants [and then identifying which variant that record represents (i.e., the link)]. However, there is another holding attached to  that master record, and no way of knowing which variant it represents.  Additionally, there is another record in OCLC (785398242) which is in dcrmb, in 8vo, with pagination [4], 16 p. (rather than 16 p.) and a signature statement.  So now there are 3 “duplicates”, and only 1 identifies itself as a variant. (There’s also another UK record with “[Another edition]” in the 250 field.  What to do with that?)

My solution would have been to use the dcrmb record (785398242), add a note describing all known variants (and any other upgrades you want to make), and report OCLC 222640157 as a duplicate.  My note would read something like this:

500:  Two settings of type are noted. In one setting, the first line of text on p. 8 reads "Parmi les vues politiques dont vous remplirez votre."’ In the other, the first line of text on p. 8 reads [get this information from the variant found through the link]. Martin & Walter does not distinguish between the different settings of type.
This OCLC record would then represent both variants. You could then add a local 500 note (as you did with the binding note), identifying which setting your library holds, of save that information for your own OPAC .
This is complicated stuff, and one example of why OCLC is so unsatisfactory as a national online union catalog for early books. It’s impossible at this point to get everyone to handle things same way.  My solution is not ideal, but seems to me to be the best course.

Elaine

From: dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu<mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu> [mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu<mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu>] On Behalf Of Noble, Richard
Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2014 4:43 PM

To: DCRM Users' Group
Subject: Re: [DCRM-L] Shares citation but varies from PDF

As I said to Deborah in a side note, I think it helps very much to add (in this case) the reading of the first line of p. 8 in the other setting--the result in two or, heaven knows, more records is a set of reciprocal notes, each of which is sufficient to obviate the need for inference on the part of the catalog user. Who knows? There might be a third setting.

RICHARD NOBLE :: RARE MATERIALS CATALOGUER :: JOHN HAY LIBRARY
BROWN UNIVERSITY  ::  PROVIDENCE, R.I. 02912  ::  401-863-1187<tel:401-863-1187>
<Richard_Noble at Br<mailto:RICHARD_NOBLE at BROWN.EDU>own.edu<http://own.edu>>

On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 3:29 PM, Alice Hanes <ahanes at hagley.org<mailto:ahanes at hagley.org>> wrote:
Elaine and Deborah—
Thank you both for your advice on including the citation and formulating a note that would serve to distinguish my book in hand from the version I saw linked through an 856 field on OCLC.  This is what I came up with:
500         Two settings of type are noted. In this setting, the first line of text on p. 8 reads "Parmi les vues politiques dont vous remplirez votre." Martin & Walter does not distinguish between different settings of type.
510  4_  Martin & Walter. Révolution française,[c]III, 24452
Here’s my follow-up question:  Should these notes have been added to the established record (#222640157) on OCLC, even with its link to a PDF of varying text, or was I justified in contributing a new master record (#869008399) of my own?  Can one suffer from too much information – and too little – at the same time?  I’m not so sure, and I have alerted bibchange at oclc.org<mailto:bibchange at oclc.org> to the situation.  What I’m learning through this experience will help me through another in the future, j'espère.

Alice H. Hanes
Technical Services Librarian
Hagley Museum and Library
298 Buck Road East
Wilmington, DE 19807-0630
(302) 658-2400<tel:%28302%29%20658-2400> x234

From: dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu<mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu> [mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu<mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu>] On Behalf Of Shiner, Elaine
Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2014 1:00 PM

To: DCRM Users' Group
Subject: Re: [DCRM-L] Shares citation but varies from PDF

I think Deborah is right about the reference to Martin & Walter. Leaving it out is maybe a bit lazy ☺.

Elaine

From: dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu<mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu> [mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu<mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu>] On Behalf Of Deborah J. Leslie
Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2014 3:47 PM
To: DCRM Users' Group
Subject: Re: [DCRM-L] Shares citation but varies from PDF

Hello Alice and Elaine,

If I understand the situation correctly, I agree with Elaine. I would cite Martin & Walter, and in the note you make that distinguishes the two editions, add something to the effect that Martin & Walter does not distinguish between the two editions. Make no reference to the OCLC record or link. Here's an example of a record I did just last week: http://shakespeare.folger.edu/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?BBID=264765

Also take close look at your text. I'd bet that "occafion" is really " occaſion."

Deborah J. Leslie, M.A., M.L.S. | Folger Shakespeare Library | 201 East Capitol St., S.E. | Washington, D.C. 20003 | djleslie at folger.edu<mailto:djleslie at folger.edu> | 202.675-0369<tel:202.675-0369> | http://www.folger.edu

-----Original Message-----
From: dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu<mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu> [mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu] On Behalf Of Shiner, Elaine
Sent: Monday, 27 January 2014 16:40
To: DCRM Users' Group
Subject: Re: [DCRM-L] Shares citation but varies from PDF

Dear Alice:

I don't think that's a good idea, since you have no control over the links.  If I couldn't find any difference that could justify a new OCLC record, I would insert a 500 note into the master record, but without referring to the link.  For instance, "Two editions are noted." or "Two setting of type are noted", and then: In one, the last line of text on p. [5] reads:  ". occafion plus favorable pour confondre vos en- .."; in the other, the last line of text on p. [5] reads "[whatever it reads in the electronic resource]"  I don't think it's necessary to mention Martin & Walter, as long as the description in Martin & Walter could refer to either.

Elaine Shiner,

Rare Book Cataloger

Houghton Library

-----Original Message-----

From: dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu<mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu> [mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu] On Behalf Of Alice Hanes

Sent: Monday, January 20, 2014 2:26 PM

To: DCRM Users' Group

Subject: [DCRM-L] Shares citation but varies from PDF

Dear colleagues--  We are converting some French Revolution pamphlets to MARC records from catalog cards, many of which include citations.  The one in hand cites  Martin & Walter, III, 24452, which is further linked through (OCoLC) 12938925 to an electronic resource that has the same page count but  different type-set.  I'm wondering whether I should note mine as a variant through a note such as the one below and would appreciate hearing how any of you might handle this situation.  Thank you.

500            This ed. varies from electronic resource linked to (OCoLC) 12938925 which also cites Martin & Walter. Révolution française. III, 24452.  Last line of text on p. [5] reads:  ". occafion plus favorable pour confondre vos en- .."

510  4  Martin & Walter. Révolution française, [c]III, 24452

Alice H. Hanes

Technical Services Librarian

Hagley Museum and Library

298 Buck Road East

Wilmington, DE 19807-0630

(302) 658-2400 x234<tel:%28302%29%20658-2400%20x234>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/attachments/20140305/9d912f0b/attachment-0001.html>