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

[Jane Stemp Wickenden]

I recall cataloguing an anonymous 16th-century book at (I think ) Balliol College, in the mid-90s, with the author's presentation inscription in the front (he was a Balliol man). Technically a copy-specific feature, but of bibliographic significance, as no other copy recorded such an inscription.  

Apologies;  I am evidently reaching my anecdotage. ;)

Jane
(Oxford University Early Printed Books Project, in the dim and distant days).

On 15 December 2015 21:54:31 GMT+00:00, Ted P Gemberling <tgemberl at uab.edu> wrote:
>Yes, that’s my understanding of what the subfield 5 is for, when you
>have information that you’re not sure is only of local interest. If
>your copy proves to you that the note is unnecessary, go ahead and
>delete it. But don’t delete all 500’s with subfield 5. As Richard says,
>they may contain important clues to some mysterious aspect of a book.
>
>I recently cataloged a book with a record created by NLE (National
>Library of Scotland?). There were a number of local notes on it. I’ll
>admit I wasn’t bold enough to remove them from the master record, but
>since NLE was the only other library using the record, I added $5 NLE
>to the 500’s.
>
>Ted Gemberling
>UAB Lister Hill Library
>
>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 3:43 PM
>To: DCRM Users' Group
>Subject: Re: [DCRM-L] Deletion of copy-specific fields/data from OCLC
>master?
>
>If you do that with all $5 note fields you might lose one of my
>precious gems--that is, when it's a feature of Brown's copy (and almost
>certainly of some but not all other copies) that is the clue to
>variation within a manifestation (issue, roughly), I will usually tag
>it $5 RPB. But perhaps I shouldn't do so, as long as the note
>explicitly states that the observation is based on the Brown University
>copy. I don't like such notes that leave one wondering "Where did that
>come from?"
>
>I'm too old now not to be bold, so I've taken to sweeping LC's local
>collection (710) and acquisition notes (561) out of master records. If
>you want such information about LC's holdings, search their local
>catalog.
>
>Of course, our  opac doesn't even display $5 in its "regular [full,
>labelled] display", only in our "coded display" (what others call MARC
>or Staff or Librarian view).
>
>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<http://own.edu>>
>
>On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 4:21 PM, Randal S. BRANDT
><rbrandt at library.berkeley.edu<mailto:rbrandt at library.berkeley.edu>>
>wrote:
>I've also gotten bolder with age and now generally delete copy-specific
>information from OCLC master records. I do make an exception for $5
>DLC, however. Not yet bold enough to delete Library of Congress
>information.
>
>We also set up a routine job for our Systems Office to sweep the ILS
>periodically looking for instances of $5 that contain non-UC Berkeley
>organization codes and remove those fields, whether they be notes or
>access points, from our local catalog.

-- 
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/attachments/20151215/b5c95da5/attachment.html>