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

[Ted P Gemberling]

Sorry to be late in coming to this discussion. I agree that Karen’s post is worrisome. I think Bob might be overly generous in interpreting it as not reflecting her own views.

I understand OCLC doesn’t dedup records for books before 1801. Would it be possible to ask them not to dedup any records coded DCRM, so as to protect information in records such as OCLC #1687316 (dated 1828)?

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: Tuesday, April 07, 2015 9:54 AM
To: DCRM Users' Group
Subject: Re: [DCRM-L] Discontinuation of OCLC's institutional records program

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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/attachments/20150412/e409c479/attachment-0001.html>