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

[Schneider, Nina]

Thanks Bob. 

-----Original Message-----
From: dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu [mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu] On Behalf Of Robert Maxwell
Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2014 5:03 PM
To: DCRM Users' Group
Subject: Re: [DCRM-L] For RBMS/BSC review: draft letter to OCLC

I am quite surprised, in fact astounded, to hear that subfields $s and $f may be being removed from 240 fields. Do you have some examples where OCLC has done this? Since these subfields are in the authorized access points recorded in 1XX/240 and do exist in the authority records controlling those fields, programmatically removing them would be a major error that affects all kinds of cataloging in OCLC, not just rare materials records, if it in fact has been happening. I should think there would have been an immediate outcry beyond the dcrm list ...

On point 4, their macro should not touch abbreviations in 245, 250, or 260 whether they are in rare records or not. There is no way of knowing whether the abbreviation was on the original resource or not, and this applies to both rare and non-rare materials. OCLC should NOT be monkeying with abbreviations in these fields on any kind of record.

Bob

Robert L. Maxwell
Ancient Languages and Special Collections Cataloger
6728 Harold B. Lee Library
Brigham Young University
Provo, UT 84602
(801)422-5568 

"We should set an example for all the world, rather than confine ourselves to the course which has been heretofore pursued"--Eliza R. Snow, 1842.


-----Original Message-----
From: dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu [mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu] On Behalf Of Schneider, Nina
Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2014 5:48 PM
To: DCRM Revision Group List (dcrm-l at lib.byu.edu)
Subject: [DCRM-L] For RBMS/BSC review: draft letter to OCLC
Importance: High

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/