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

Thu Mar 20 06:34:31 MDT 2014

I'd like to suggest that GIHC be added to the list of untouchables in the 1
st point. Last fall I was individually cataloging a number of items
following gihc. Many of the items had the same title and creator, but
varied as to color, size, and other points brought out in my notes. Several
days into the project, I discovered that some of my records had been
merged. I contacted OCLC, and was told, as per the quote in Mr. Brandt's
letter, to enclose a fabricated edition statement in square bracket, which
of course I did not do.

I can't image this situation is unique.

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 *Randal S. BRANDT
*Sent:* Wednesday, March 19, 2014 8:17 PM
*To:* DCRM Users' Group
*Subject:* Re: [DCRM-L] For RBMS/BSC review: draft letter to OCLC

Nina,

For point 1, the attached letter to OCLC may assist with background. Also,
please see the BSC minutes of 2011 Midwinter (at which Annie Copeland
volunteered to draft the attached letter) and 2011 Annual (which report
that the letter was sent to OCLC).

My understanding was that all dcrm(x) codes *and *the predecessor codes
bdrb and dcrb were being protected But, it would be a good idea to get that
confirmed, and also to confirm whether OCLC needs to be contacted whenever
a new dcrm code is added or whether they are being automatically protected.

Stylistically, in your 4th sentence sentence, I would use the actual 040 $e
code values, e.g. dcrmb instead of DCRM(B). And, you've got DCRM(M) twice;
the second instance should be DCRM(MSS) [or dcrmmss, if you go that route].

Thanks for drafting this letter!

Randy

On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 5:03 PM, Robert Maxwell <robert_maxwell at byu.edu>
wrote:

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/

-- 

Randal S. Brandt

The Bancroft Library | University of California, Berkeley

510.643.2275 | rbrandt at library.berkeley.edu
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/attachments/20140320/8072eba3/attachment.html>