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

[Allison Jai O'Dell]

I agree with Deborah, Ryan, and Ted regarding copy-specific details that
supply manifestation-relevant information.

As for truly-truly copy-specific information:  My thinking on this topic
changed a few years ago, after talking with researchers who were astounded
and outraged that libraries might be deleting data that is critical to
their work.

I agree with Francis that our current display mechanisms and data model
isn't the best for meeting user needs re: former owner info and the like.
I hope/assume that Jackie's team is going to address these concerns?

Personally, I want to push for changes in our displays and models -- not
delete valuable data that users want, in order to fit a situation that,
apparently, isn't meeting user needs.

Does this make sense?  I'm totally open to other perspectives and ideas.
But I am, for the record, hesitant to delete data that researchers have
told me loud and clear they want access to.



Allison

On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 12:19 PM, Ted P Gemberling <tgemberl at uab.edu> wrote:

> Yes, I think that’s good, as long as there is an introductory phrase
> identifying which library has the inscription. If it helps catalog the
> book, it is “universal” information.
>
> Ted Gemberling
>
>
>
> *From:* dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu [mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu] *On
> Behalf Of *Deborah J. Leslie
> *Sent:* Wednesday, December 16, 2015 10:58 AM
> *To:* DCRM Users' Group
>
> *Subject:* Re: [DCRM-L] Deletion of copy-specific fields/data from OCLC
> master?
>
>
>
> I am in favor of *not* tagging a general note with ‡5 when the
> information from a particular copy justifies manifestation- or
> work/expression-level information.
>
>
>
> Deborah J. Leslie | Folger Shakespeare Library | djleslie at folger.edu |
> 202.675-0369 | 201 East Capitol St., SE, Washington, DC 20003 | www.
> folger.edu
>
>
>
> *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 *Ryan Hildebrand
> *Sent:* Wednesday, 16 December 2015 11:42
> *To:* DCRM Users' Group
> *Subject:* Re: [DCRM-L] Deletion of copy-specific fields/data from OCLC
> master?
>
>
>
> I might agree, but I don’t think there is a potential system configuration
> nuanced enough for a hub and spoke approach. For example, I *do* want to
> see an author attribution note based on an inscription in a single copy. I
> especially want to see such a note if it supports additional
> manifestation-level AAPs, which might not be tagged |5. I do not want to
> see local copy numbers, notes on bookplates, etc. It feels like a
> display-based solution offers an all or nothing approach, with maybe an
> uncomfortable middle ground (e.g., display field when |5 = x institutions).
>
>
>
> It is interesting to hear from Christine that some libraries are not
> contributing this data intentionally, with future WorldCat use in mind.
>
>
>
> It may be that another approach is needed. Richard touched on this.
> Perhaps when local information supports a manifestation-level elements, it
> should not be tagged |5, but should be introduced with a phrase identifying
> the institution, e.g., 500__University of Oregon copy inscribed...
>
>
>
> I appreciate all the input thus far.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Ryan
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *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 *Allison Jai O'Dell
> *Sent:* Wednesday, December 16, 2015 5:28 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> 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/d9e43ffc/attachment-0001.html>