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

[Ted P Gemberling]

Jane,
I didn’t really mean to say you were doing research on the author. I just meant that if you included that note, you were apparently trying to help researchers on the author. That’s an honorable effort. I just wonder if it’s sustainable in the long run, especially given the amount of local information people could put on records. Right now I’m cataloging a book from 1737 with a record with 53 holdings. If every library put local notes on, the record would be a mess. But as Allison says, maybe there’s some way to improve the display mechanisms.

Ted

From: dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu [mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu] On Behalf Of Jane Stemp Wickenden
Sent: Tuesday, December 15, 2015 6:25 PM
To: DCRM Users' Group
Subject: Re: [DCRM-L] Deletion of copy-specific fields/data from OCLC master?

Dear Ted,

I didn't actually say what I *did* with the information, you will observe ;)

(chiefly because I cannot now recall!)

Best regards,

Jane
On 16 December 2015 00:01:26 GMT+00:00, Ted P Gemberling <tgemberl at uab.edu<mailto:tgemberl at uab.edu>> wrote:
Jane,
I think it’s really the job of historians and bibliographers to study the lives of authors, not catalogers. Of course that information is valuable and should be on your library’s record for the book, but I wouldn’t put it on the master record. Historians have the means to track down the libraries where authors’ presentation inscriptions are more likely to be.


For example, we have two books authored by Queen Victoria that have her presentation inscription to her physician. Of course I put a note of that on our local record, but I wouldn’t put it on the master record unless it were necessary to catalog the book. In other words, if in the preface Queen Victoria had said, “my wonderful physician helped me a great deal in writing this book” and never gave his name, then the presentation inscription would help identify someone who should be an added entry. But just the fact that he got a copy of it with a presentation inscription will not ordinarily help catalog the book.


Just my two cents. Maybe I’m underestimating the value of local information. Certain kinds of books—especially I’d think manuscripts—make notes like that absolutely essential. But I don’t think printed books are enlightened very often by inscriptions.


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 Jane Stemp Wickenden
Sent: Tuesday, December 15, 2015 5:31 PM
To: DCRM Users' Group
Subject: Re: [DCRM-L] Deletion of copy-specific fields/data from OCLC master?


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<mailto: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> [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/20151216/7bf93cae/attachment.html>