[DCRM-L] local data in OCLC

[Moody, Honor M.]

Hello all,

Karen Nipps mentioned last week that we at Harvard are waiting for responses from OCLC.  I am  sending a slightly edited version of the email that I sent asking for clarification on what I understand to be the available documentation, particularly the transcript of the Q & A from the two webinars<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www5.oclc.org_downloads_webinars_InstitutionRecordswebinar-5FQA-5Fsummary.pdf&d=BQMGaQ&c=WO-RGvefibhHBZq3fL85hQ&r=3nc7uBjJc9SXjstUJb4MBv_VwPSQWN0xkOiqaALNXBA&m=LQ8ElOsrT9QGfqO0l17Yx6edIpe3yBCFVbtkMeDAzYo&s=KwC0sM9fXU2WuQR-ChvE-6PBPqm83WVB23w45HdfDZQ&e=>, as it seems relevant to various parts of the current discussion.

Best,
Honor

Questions/comments for OCLC:

Question 21 says that 541 and 561 fields are not included in LBD, though OCLC will consider them in the future.  To be quite frank, I’m feeling as though I’ve really missed something important about the purpose of the LBD if these fields are not included—they are, after all, defined as copy specific. This is additionally frustrating because the illustrative sticky notes on the Working with LBD<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.oclc.org_content_dam_support_documentation_cataloging_Working-5Fwith-5FLBDs.pdf&d=BQMGaQ&c=WO-RGvefibhHBZq3fL85hQ&r=3nc7uBjJc9SXjstUJb4MBv_VwPSQWN0xkOiqaALNXBA&m=LQ8ElOsrT9QGfqO0l17Yx6edIpe3yBCFVbtkMeDAzYo&s=iC5c8j-VCuJe4QWy_fY2JYVPlo8Z9KHveojtOmYSZAI&e=> documentation are for exactly the kind of information that is recorded in these fields.

I am also not really persuaded that provenance, ownership and custody information rightfully belong in the master record (question 26) of published materials. For example, OCLC #191248862, which has provenance and binding descriptions from two separate libraries, but 29 other holdings (several of the IRs contain varying degrees of copy specific info, including provenance)—I can imagine what this would look like if even a third of the holding libraries had individual 561s, but I am having a harder time imagining how this could usefully be presented to users on the front end (never mind catalogers).

On a related note, #191248862 is also an example of 655s with $5, contra the response in question 38.  This is a great example of a mix of copy specific and as issued 655s (though the as issued binding headings may not still be true for all holdings), but also of copy specific 655s that may be applicable to more than one copy (Authors' presentation inscriptions (Provenance)), yet the $5 is defined as not repeatable, so would require an additional field for each holding library if this information were to be retained in the master.  Given that the RBMS controlled vocabularies are a  mix of terms that can only be copy specific, those that are always true of the resource and those that can be either, I think that application guidelines are probably desirable.

Other fields that I consider to be either per se or potentially copy specific and therefore should be valid LBD are the 506, 562, 563 and 583.


Honor Moody
Cataloger
Schlesinger Library
Radcliffe Institute for Advanced Study
3 James Street
Cambridge, MA 02138
Tel.: (617) 495-4223
Email: hmoody at radcliffe.harvard.edu

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/attachments/20150831/a530d9ff/attachment.html>