[DCRM-L] Discontinuation of OCLC's institutional records program

[Elizabeth O'Keefe]

It would seem to be a case of "fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice
..."

Liz O'Keefe

On Tue, Apr 7, 2015 at 10:54 AM, Lapka, Francis <francis.lapka at yale.edu>
wrote:

>  There is a timely and closely related posting by Karen Smith-Yoshimura
> (of OCLC research):
>
> http://hangingtogether.org/?p=5091
>
>
>
> See especially the sections on “Sharing data in centralized and
> distributed models” and “Importance of provenance,” which discuss the idea
> of using OCLC data as the *database of record* for local catalogs.
>
>
>
> The idea of such a dependency on OCLC for special collections metadata
> makes me uncomfortable. I’d be happier looking to resources such as (an
> improved) ESTC as databases of record, even if this option presents greater
> challenges for development and sustainability.
>
>
>
> Francis
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *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 *Ted P Gemberling
> *Sent:* Friday, March 27, 2015 1:31 PM
> *To:* DCRM Users' Group
> *Subject:* Re: [DCRM-L] We need a schema for that (was: Discontinuation
> of OCLC's institutional records program)
>
>
>
> Francis,
>
> I would be pretty nervous about trying to create our own database,
> independent of OCLC. Unless we are in a position to buy all of OCLC’s
> records on old books and then revise all of them. I think Allison’s idea of
> linking the annotations on Bibframe to “appropriate” OCLC records is more
> realistic. I realize that means we would still have to wade through all the
> duplicate records to find “appropriate” ones. But after all, that’s what
> we’ve been doing for quite awhile. And since there are a limited number of
> new editions of pre-1801 books yet to be cataloged, this problem should
> diminish over time. Admittedly there are still lots of non-English-language
> records being added, but I generally ignore those unless all the English
> records are particularly poor, in my effort to figure out how to describe a
> book.
>
>
>
> Ted Gemberling
>
>
>
> *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 *Lapka, Francis
> *Sent:* Friday, March 27, 2015 8:55 AM
> *To:* DCRM Users' Group
> *Subject:* Re: [DCRM-L] We need a schema for that (was: Discontinuation
> of OCLC's institutional records program)
>
>
>
> I partially agree with your suggestion, Allison (the big picture bit); but
> linking to OCLC for edition (Manifestation) descriptions would be less than
> ideal (see my previous message).
>
>
>
> *If* BIBFRAME succeeds in becoming the standard for the representation of
> library data on the web, then RBMS should work to develop the schema it
> needs within the BIBFRAME framework. Although the current BIBFRAME model
> represents copy-specific descriptions as Annotations, it’s my impression
> that they are reconsidering this decision; that is, they may revise the
> model to recognize Items (/Holdings) as a proper resource. See:
>
>
>
> http://listserv.loc.gov/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind1501&L=bibframe&T=0&P=13353
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__listserv.loc.gov_cgi-2Dbin_wa-3FA2-3Dind1501-26L-3Dbibframe-26T-3D0-26P-3D13353&d=AwMGaQ&c=-dg2m7zWuuDZ0MUcV7Sdqw&r=t7GDkvcZa922K6iya7a6MxgVxxw7OjL0m1rPBXkflk4&m=Q3oaXUaHkwFGbSWtKg0LXXjqMWZrH8HuorCA_7T0UQU&s=grTf_ijjP4W3UvUKyk9G0v3ZzGop0zabNC9SMN4YhRk&e=>
>
>
>
> Yes, we should definitely push for a schema (in BIBFRAME, or elsewhere if
> need be) with data elements that precisely match the copy-specific
> information our community uses. I’d be happy to contribute to such work.
>
>
>
> Francis
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *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 *Allison Jai O'Dell
> *Sent:* Wednesday, March 25, 2015 3:08 PM
> *To:* DCRM Revision Group List
> *Subject:* [DCRM-L] We need a schema for that (was: Discontinuation of
> OCLC's institutional records program)
>
>
>
> I hesitate to send this out to the DCRM list, but since we're on the
> subject...
>
>
>
> The IR thread has surfaced a well-known problem: that rare materials users
> need better access to detailed and copy-specific information -- and they
> need it from an aggregated, Web-based portal, not through everybody's
> individual catalogs.
>
>
>
> I do not think that we, the DCRM community, need to rely on OCLC or
> WorldCat to achieve this end.  At a 2014 Bib Standards meeting, I suggested
> an alternate solution:
>
>
>
> RBMS should develop a schema for the copy-specific and detailed
> information that rare materials libraries aim to capture.  Descriptions in
> this new format could be linked to BIBFRAME resources as an Annotation, and
> linked to OCLC records for the appropriate edition.
>
>
>
> Once we have structured data, we can develop the cross-institutional
> datastores and access means that our users need.
>
>
>
> Thoughts?  Volunteers?  The IR thread has re-invigorated my interest in
> this idea, and I'd like to push forward.
>
>
>
>
>
> Best,
> Allison
>



-- 
Elizabeth O'Keefe
Director of Collection Information Systems
The Morgan Library & Museum
225 Madison Avenue
New York, NY  10016-3405

TEL: 212 590-0380
FAX: 2127685680
NET: eokeefe at themorgan.org

Visit CORSAIR, the Library's comprehensive collections catalog:
http://corsair.themorgan.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/attachments/20150407/5e62de8d/attachment.html>