[DCRM-L] For RBMS/BSC review: draft letter to OCLC

[Schneider, Nina]

Colleagues,

Below is a draft of a letter that I'd like to send to Linda Gable of OCLC Quality Control on behalf of BSC. It's somewhat self-explanatory, but two different catalogers have brought these issues to my attention. If you are noticing any more problems with rare material bib records that haven't been mentioned here, please let me know. I will likely ask Linda or another OCLC rep to attend the BSC meeting at Annual if this needs to be discussed further.

Any suggestions (or additions) would be appreciated before the end of the day on Friday so I can send it out on Monday.

Thanks!
Nina




Dear Linda,

It has come to the attention of the Bibliographic Standards Committee (BSC) of the Rare Books and Manuscripts Section (RBMS) of ACRL that OCLC has been revising bibliographic records that have been created or upgraded by the rare materials community. There are at least four separate issues: identification of rare material records, the removal of particular subfields in the 240, adding 33x fields to non-RDA records, and expansion of abbreviations. Until the time that BSC revises DCRM to align our catalog records with RDA, we urge OCLC to cease this practice as it is causing potential problems with the institutions affected. 

1. Identification of rare material records. 
We understand that records coded 040$e dcrm(x) will not be touched. We also understand that it's been brought to OCLC's attention that 040 amremm should also be protected. Are legacy records of rare materials also protected? Those that are coded BDRB, DCRB, as well as DCRM(B), DCRM(S), DCRM(M), DCRM(G), and eventually DCRM(M) and DCRM(C) should also be protected. If they aren't, could you please update the "protected" list?

2. Removal of particular subfields in the 240.
A cataloger at an academic library mentioned that subfield f and subfield s in the 240 are being removed by OCLC. This library is the inputting agency. Although the items are rare, it is this institution's policy to omit adding dcrmb in the 040 since the materials are late 19th- or early 20th-century. Why would these subfields be removed in the first place? If the cataloging agency is adding subfields to the uniform title and they are being subsequently deleted, is the only solution for protecting them to code these records "dcrmb"?

3. Adding 33x fields to non-RDA records.
 The 338 terms (RDA carrier type) is currently unresolved. As you mentioned in your letter to Kate Moriarity (Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 1:13 PM), " The question as to whether something described as "1 p." or "1 leaf", under a cover or not, versus "1 sheet" or "1 broadside" resulting in 338 coded as "volume" or "sheet" is seemingly unresolved. We will make adjustments when guidelines make it clear what needs to happen." There is a concern about adding 33x fields to rare materials records before DCRM is revised for RDA. Is there a reason this cannot wait?

4. Expansion of abbreviations.
In the same email response you wrote to Kate Moriarty on March 19th, " While we do rely on macros to do limited editing of the bib records to add elements that will ensure consistent indexing and retrieval (33X), I have verified that our macros do NOT touch abbreviations in the 245, 250, or the 260 field when the 040 $e is coded "dcrmb". At present we are not acknowledging the presence of "amremm" in the 040 $e, but we are fixing that oversight immediately, and those records will also be protected from changes to abbreviations in those fields."
Our concern is that there are many instances where an abbreviation might be found in a field that is not 245, 250 or 260. DCRM(B), for example, instructs us to "Transcribe other title information not appearing on the title pages in a note, if considered important" (Rule 1D1). We are also instructed, in 7A4.2 to transcribe information from the publication or from other sources in quotation marks [in a note]. We can also transcribe contents from the title page in a note field. In fact, there are many instances of transcription in the 5xx fields that may include transcribed abbreviations. By limiting the abbreviation expansion to just the 2xx fields, it's quite possible that OCLC is creating difficulties for both librarians and patrons to identify items and actually changing the bibliographic record in significant ways.

 We hope that OCLC understands these concerns and will cooperate with the rare book and manuscript community to resolve these problems. If you or your colleagues are able to make any suggestions on how we can protect our records from macros and automated revisions, we will appreciate it.

Please don't hesitate to contact me with any questions or if you need clarification.

Nina
 

+---------------
Nina M. Schneider
Chair, RBMS Bibliographic Standards Committee

Head Cataloger
William Andrews Clark Memorial Library
2520 Cimarron Street
Los Angeles, CA  90018
(323) 731-8529

nschneider at humnet.ucla.edu
http://www.humnet.ucla.edu/humnet/clarklib/