[DCRM-L] Deletion of copy-specific fields/data from OCLC master?

[Shiner, Elaine P.]

I’ve always left local data in, as long as the field(s) had a $$5 at the end.  But perhaps it’s better to remove local information, for all the reasons mentioned by Ryan and Richard.  The only guideline I can find in OCLC documentation is the following (in “Brief guidelines for editing and replacing WorldCat master records”):
AVOID including local data or local practices in a master bibliographic record.
That would seem to provide some official encouragement, at least, for removing local data from the master record.

Elaine Shiner,
Rare Book Cataloger
Houghton Library, Harvard University

eshiner at fas.harvard.edu<mailto:eshiner at fas.harvard.edu>
617-496-9190




From: dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu [mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu] On Behalf Of Noble, Richard
Sent: Tuesday, December 15, 2015 2:15 PM
To: DCRM Users' Group
Subject: Re: [DCRM-L] Deletion of copy-specific fields/data from OCLC master?

I take the "master record" principle seriously, enhance records routinely--and delete copy-specific information that does not add to general understanding of the manifestation (especially as regards variants that can be characterized as states rather than evidence for different issue, some of which I may add to a record as evidence for a general note--call it "some-copies" information). My supervisor generally approves, since a "master" record that contains truly copy-specific information is in fact not a master record.

Not doing so leads to unnecessary duplication of effort on the part of those who exercise conscious control over applicability of information coming into their local catalog, and confusion when such control is not exercised--confusion that may reveal itself to researchers (sometimes other catalogers) who are make the effort to compare local records. For them, the only usefulness of such copy-specific detritus is the evidence it provides that a record or records cannot be trusted as the product of cataloger judgment.

RICHARD NOBLE :: RARE MATERIALS CATALOGUER :: JOHN HAY LIBRARY
BROWN UNIVERSITY  ::  PROVIDENCE, R.I. 02912  ::  401-863-1187
<Richard_Noble at Br<mailto:RICHARD_NOBLE at BROWN.EDU>own.edu<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__own.edu&d=CwMFaQ&c=WO-RGvefibhHBZq3fL85hQ&r=z7NicJkNYFkVLEcQmeSRBA7uLawvKWXubuodzMMWnVw&m=vXH7VfRbK_YbcSDk4OyiXFnV6gXBmGYEzazqhUWN9s4&s=OvbnYc8rPpgJk_Do_hE2_-KVqtqk6OFFtmLzH3Pc7jU&e=>>

On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 1:47 PM, Ryan Hildebrand <rhilde at uoregon.edu<mailto:rhilde at uoregon.edu>> wrote:
I’ve noted recent discussions on the topic of adding local/copy-specific data to OCLC masters in response to the discontinuation of Institution Records. At the same time, I am aware that some libraries delete this information from master records when encountered. I’m thinking specifically of copy numbers, bookplates, and other provenance information that does not support the bibliographic description or other non-local access points. What is the pulse of the group? Do you delete this information and replace the OCLC master, or leave it alone? References to relevant OCLC or PCC policies would be appreciated.

Personally, I’ve always been hesitant to delete this kind of information from master records, because I’ve been able to remove it before exporting the record to the local catalog. My feelings on this are radically changing, as at University of Oregon, we are part of a consortium-implementation of Exlibris’ Alma, in which our local records are tied to OCLC masters. In this environment, other libraries’ local data is a constant problem. Yes, it might be possible to address this through display options (norm rules), and I intend to look into this further, but the consortium aspect adds layers of difficulty.

Thanks,
Ryan

---
Ryan Hildebrand
Authorities & Special Collections Cataloging Librarian
University of Oregon Libraries
1299 University of Oregon
Eugene OR 97403-1299
(541) 346-1844<tel:%28541%29%20346-1844>


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/attachments/20151215/ddd67c77/attachment-0001.html>