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

[Allison Jai O'Dell]

I delete copy-specific data only if there is no $5.  If there *is* a $5,
then we have valuable data about copies -- and my mantra is to never delete
metadata, but rather to suppress or alter its display, or ignore it upon
transfer.

So, I prefer not to delete copy-specific data in the master record (great
for researchers!), but rather, to ensure that fields with other people's
$5's don't import into my library's catalog. Ryan, I understand how this
approach might become a headache in a consortium environment -- but it's
not impossible, either.

Something in my gut is uncomfortable with deleting data just because we
find it obnoxious to configure our systems. ;-)  I also think that the $5
is a reasonable solution to the "hub and spoke" approach of hanging
copy-specific data off of master records, given the MARC formats.


$0.02,
Allison

On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 6:07 AM, C M <cmegowan at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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/20151216/7aeb3d7d/attachment.html>