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

Thu Mar 20 08:31:51 MDT 2014

FYI OCLC's statement of changes can be found in the "Machine Manipulation
of Existing WorldCat Records" section of their OCLC RDA Policy Statement
http://www.oclc.org/en-US/rda/new-policy.html.

Also, this thread is now discussing two separate programs at OCLC -
duplicate records merging and automatic RDA changes to records - though
they present the same challenge of how to protect rare materials records.

-Kate

On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 9:29 AM, Nipps, Karen <nipps at fas.harvard.edu> wrote:

>  I need to say that I agree with Bob 100%. These are issues that concern
> all catalogers, not just rare book catalogers. And having a coded 040 will
> protect only a small number of records in the grand scheme of things.
>
>
>
> Karen Nipps
>
> Head, Rare Book Team
>
> Houghton Library
>
> Harvard University
>
> Cambridge, MA 02138
>
> Phone: 617-496-9190
>
> FAX: 617-495-1376
>
>
>
> *From:* dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu [mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu] *On
> Behalf Of *Will Evans
>
> *Sent:* Thursday, March 20, 2014 8:35 AM
> *To:* rbrandt at library.berkeley.edu; DCRM Users' Group
>
> *Subject:* Re: [DCRM-L] For RBMS/BSC review: draft letter to OCLC
>
>
>
> 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<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=http://www.bostonathenaeum.org/&k=AjZjj3dyY74kKL92lieHqQ%3D%3D%0A&r=ZFdifqG%2Bp8vO5HrMmN00qqubYOuQixo8hN0L4p%2FFs4k%3D%0A&m=cM5yR%2FNyYWAGaGPY7vpx5X0Ng%2FVG3drxX5masv9Wfm4%3D%0A&s=1ecc270fc9fb1f67087f54404869ad846e934298dbf257bd22c62b66da44cb30>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *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/<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=http://www.humnet.ucla.edu/humnet/clarklib/&k=AjZjj3dyY74kKL92lieHqQ%3D%3D%0A&r=ZFdifqG%2Bp8vO5HrMmN00qqubYOuQixo8hN0L4p%2FFs4k%3D%0A&m=cM5yR%2FNyYWAGaGPY7vpx5X0Ng%2FVG3drxX5masv9Wfm4%3D%0A&s=3a3c8e36803ea58150fed99d1f7c57a01a23462c9ae9d04e81e84cdd3c0d1558>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Randal S. Brandt
>
> The Bancroft Library | University of California, Berkeley
>
> 510.643.2275 | rbrandt at library.berkeley.edu
>

-- 
Kate S. Moriarty, MSW, MLS  |  Rare Book Catalog Librarian  |  Associate
Professor  |  Pius XII Memorial Library  |
Saint Louis University  |  3650 Lindell Blvd . |  St. Louis, MO 63108  |
(314) 977-3024 (tel)  |  (314) 977-3108 (fax)  |  moriarks at slu.edu  |
http://libraries.slu.edu/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/attachments/20140320/e698d630/attachment-0001.html>