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

Wed Dec 16 08:33:01 MST 2015

I object to adding copy-specific information to OCLC master records, first as a matter of principle (for reasons that others have already described).

But I also object because Worldcat presents such copy specific information in a way that is harmful. To illustrate, I’ve temporarily added bogus copy-specific data to the OCLC Master Record represented here:

http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/70718170

(Sorry, Jackie; I’ll fix it soon.)

In the details section you’ll find a copy-specific note, a copy-specific form/genre heading, and a copy-specific name tracing. In each category, Worldcat groups my copy-specific information with the general information (hooray, I’m a contributor!). Worldcat ignores the $5 I’ve appended to each piece of local data. This is a disastrous mixing.

Consider also: one or two copy-specific interlopers in a Master Record is a mild nuisance. But if it were common/standard practice to add copy-specific information to MRs, the manifestation data would be drowned out by the unholy noise of copy-specific information.

I’m all for tools that enable cross-collection searching of local information, but OCLC MRs are not the answer for that.

Francis

From: dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu [mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu] On Behalf Of Allison Jai O'Dell
Sent: Wednesday, December 16, 2015 8:28 AM
To: DCRM Users' Group <dcrm-l at lib.byu.edu>
Subject: Re: [DCRM-L] Deletion of copy-specific fields/data from OCLC master?

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<mailto: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<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.cardiff.ac.uk_insrv_scolar&d=AwMFaQ&c=-dg2m7zWuuDZ0MUcV7Sdqw&r=t7GDkvcZa922K6iya7a6MxgVxxw7OjL0m1rPBXkflk4&m=eicy3L_o8gL3cauJi-ATJeo13XM7Bz5pRm-Ut2eZuq0&s=UiMTddaxDtaxKXdbWqy1taC0L8FdQzLVX_9CVsvjF0Q&e=>

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<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.cardiff.ac.uk_insrv_scolar&d=AwMFaQ&c=-dg2m7zWuuDZ0MUcV7Sdqw&r=t7GDkvcZa922K6iya7a6MxgVxxw7OjL0m1rPBXkflk4&m=eicy3L_o8gL3cauJi-ATJeo13XM7Bz5pRm-Ut2eZuq0&s=UiMTddaxDtaxKXdbWqy1taC0L8FdQzLVX_9CVsvjF0Q&e=>

On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 9:58 PM, Ted P Gemberling <tgemberl at uab.edu<mailto: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> [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<tel: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=AwMFaQ&c=-dg2m7zWuuDZ0MUcV7Sdqw&r=t7GDkvcZa922K6iya7a6MxgVxxw7OjL0m1rPBXkflk4&m=eicy3L_o8gL3cauJi-ATJeo13XM7Bz5pRm-Ut2eZuq0&s=FF0so2lLD4G9IRTT_A0mfU6DMx06Hr43emJzKKdggEU&e=>>

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.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/attachments/20151216/85f1d8fa/attachment-0001.html>