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

[Tedford, Beth]

I was always taught that you can edit the master record in OCLC, save it to
a local file, then export the local file to your cataloging system (I use
Voyager). It doesn't change the master record except in your local file.
The master record retains all the original information, but your copy of
the record changes based on what you added or deleted. I am guessing other
systems do it differently so it may be more complicated.

On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 3:12 PM, Shiner, Elaine P. <eshiner at fas.harvard.edu>
wrote:

> 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
>
> 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 <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>
> 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
>
>
>
>
>



-- 
Beth Tedford, MLIS
Special Collections & Archives Assistant
Rare books cataloger
Z. Smith Reynolds Library
Wake Forest University
PO Box 7777
Winston-Salem, NC 27109
tedforme at wfu.edu
Defender of Wonders
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/attachments/20151215/0e8bfaf7/attachment-0001.html>