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

[C M]

In principle, I agree that local/copy-specific data is best left out of the
master record unless it is likely to be of interest in the wider
bibliographic universe. Since moving to the UK, however, I have found that
libraries on this side of the pond generally do not catalog(ue) directly in
OCLC Connexion, but instead import records for editing in the local ILS. At
some regular interval, the records are then exported to OCLC through a more
or less automated process. The individual cataloguer has no control over
what happens to the master record. As far as I can tell, this process
strips out any 590 fields (which seem to be used very infrequently), but
fields 541, 561, 563, or any headings tagged with $5 are left in.

As much as I hate cluttering up master records with our copy-specfic data,
it would take a major change in our local policies and/or workflows to stop
doing so.


Christine Megowan
Cataloguing Librarian: Rare Books
Special Collections and Archives
Arts and Social Studies Library
Cardiff University
Web: www.cardiff.ac.uk/insrv/scolar

Christine Megowan
Llyfrgellydd Catalogio: Llyfrau Prin
Casgliadau Arbennig ac Archifau
Llyfrgell y Celfyddydau ac Astudiaethau Cymdeithasol
Prifysgol Caerdydd
Gwefan: www.cardiff.ac.uk/insrv/scolar


On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 9:58 PM, Ted P Gemberling <tgemberl at uab.edu> wrote:

> Oh, one other point. When I create a 500 with subfield 5 with information
> I think some other cataloger might want, I change it to a 590 when I bring
> it into our catalog. 590’s are displayed differently in our catalog from
> 500’s. I delete all the 500’s that are obviously local information for
> other libraries.
>
> Ted
>
>
>
> *From:* Ted P Gemberling
> *Sent:* Tuesday, December 15, 2015 3:55 PM
> *To:* 'DCRM Users' Group'
> *Subject:* RE: [DCRM-L] Deletion of copy-specific fields/data from OCLC
> master?
>
>
>
> 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
> <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 <RICHARD_NOBLE at BROWN.EDU>own.edu>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 4:21 PM, Randal S. BRANDT <
> 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.
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/attachments/20151216/6d141cb3/attachment-0001.html>