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

Tue Apr 7 11:54:11 MDT 2015

I misread the post and characterized it incorrectly as the views of Karen Smith-Yoshimura when she was simply summarizing a meeting. However, my main point remains, I am tired of catalogers who revise shared records being branded as being in the business of correcting minor differences that don’t really matter. And this applies to all cataloging, not just rare.

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.

From: dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu [mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu] On Behalf Of Robert Maxwell
Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2015 10:23 AM
To: DCRM Users' Group
Subject: Re: [DCRM-L] Discontinuation of OCLC's institutional records program

The irritating thing about Karen’s essay is the implication that we’re all busy “correcting minor differences between AACR2 and RDA that don’t matter, such as pagination.” Why can’t catalogers get with the program and “reuse rather than modify”? Instead policies have to be put in place to stop staff from doing what they don’t have to do. The implication (and one which our most of our administrations buy into) is that we’re just making cosmetic changes to the records and we need to be stopped from doing it. Our own workflows at BYU have deliberately been changed here to keep some incoming materials away from the catalogers, presumably so they won’t be tempted to do what they don’t have to do.

I’m here to tell you that yes, I do routinely change copy. Occasionally it is cosmetic, but usually there are real changes that need to be made, and this is not just an issue for rare materials. For instance this morning I am cataloging a 2015 edition of an early Christian author. I am using LC copy, presumably the sort of cataloging Karen thinks we should just pass through without looking at it or reviewing it in any way. This copy, though RDA, did not have any relationship designators on the access points. These are quite important in the future linked data environment, so yes, I did add them to the copy. There was no access point for the expression. So yes, I did add it. The authority record created by LC for the work was very bare bones so yes, I did modify it by adding missing references and RDA elements. The series were not traced (as is LC’s lamented custom) so yes, I did modify the copy by adding series access points since we do still find these to be useful access points at our library (indeed, its presence in one of the series was the entire reason why our library collected this particular book). And oops, I did fuss with the pagination since it wasn’t recorded at all, though apparently that’s a minor difference that doesn’t matter.

Karen says “if we all “do it right the first time” we should be able to accept others’ records without review or editing.” This statement implies an assuption that OCLC master records were done right the first time so why do we keep tinkering with them? The assertion is questionable on its face, in any case, implying as it does that everybody’s the same, that everybody agrees on what “doing it right” means, that the definition of “doing it right” doesn’t evolve over time, and that everybody should be able to make do with whatever the first cataloger did to describe the resource (whether that resource is a work, an expression, a manifestation, or any other FRBR entity). The whole point of a shared database is that we all can help and improve each others’ work. That doesn’t equal “accept whatever you find ‘as is’” as Karen laments we can’t seem to do. What it does mean is that when we see a need to enhance or improve an existing record we need not be ashamed to do so. I foresee this continuing in the post-MARC world, in the linked data future as well—surely we’re not all going to be saddled with accepting without question whatever happens to be found in the linked-data universe whenever we need to add something new to our collections. It is hugely arrogant to assume that just because I happen to be the first person to describe a resource nobody after me should legitimately be able to make a contribution to my description or improve it in any way.

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.

From: dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu<mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu> [mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu] On Behalf Of Elizabeth O'Keefe
Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2015 8:59 AM
To: DCRM Users' Group
Subject: Re: [DCRM-L] Discontinuation of OCLC's institutional records program

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<mailto: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> [mailto: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> [mailto: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> [mailto: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<mailto: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/e4fd4ee7/attachment-0001.html>