[DCRM-L] Shares citation but varies from PDF

Wed Mar 5 14:41:21 MST 2014

If one makes a new record--necessarily for the one edition that one has in
hand--what, if anything, should be done with the existing ambiguous record?
It still seems right to add a note, which warns the user that holdings
associated with the record have yet to be disambiguated, and a pointer to
the new record.

This is a case where environments matter: master records live in a
different world from records in individual catalogs. Really one ought to
create two new master records, one of which might have no holdings, looking
to that day in the future when all of the holdings from the old record will
at last be correctly parcelled out.

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 Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 4:27 PM, Deborah J. Leslie <DJLeslie at folger.edu>wrote:

>  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 <RICHARD_NOBLE at BROWN.EDU>own.edu>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 11:27 AM, Shiner, Elaine <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] *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
>
> <Richard_Noble at Br <RICHARD_NOBLE at BROWN.EDU>own.edu>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 3:29 PM, Alice Hanes <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 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 x234
>
>
>
> *From:* 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 J.
>
>
>
> Elaine
>
>
>
> *From:* 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 |
> 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<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<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
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/attachments/20140305/d253d8ab/attachment-0001.html>