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

[Ted P Gemberling]

I think one lesson to be considered is that libraries, or at least special collections, are really not very different from what they were like before the coming of computers. We still have to do all of the detailed work we ever had to do: we just have one more tool. The online catalog is not some kind of giant leap from the card catalog.

Linde quoted Ranganathan’s Fourth Law of Library Science: “Save the time of the reader.” I would revise that just a little by adding “to the extent practicable.”

Someone made the interesting observation a few years ago that when academic departments like History or English get their funding cut, they just reduce the work they do. In contrast, if a library’s funding is cut, it’s expected to keep doing the same amount of work or even more. That contributes to the expectation that we will somehow make our catalogs magical repositories of every kind of information anyone could possibly want. It’s not feasible.

Just a few thoughts.
Ted Gemberling

From: dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu [mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu] On Behalf Of Noble, Richard
Sent: Thursday, December 17, 2015 9:03 AM
To: DCRM Users' Group
Subject: Re: [DCRM-L] Deletion of copy-specific fields/data from OCLC master?

The model for doing what Ted suggests with copy-specific information already exists in, for example, ESTC. In theory, the general bibliographical record is clean, containing information about the manifestation as such--which may well include information based on evidence found in a copy or set of copies, such copies really falling within the scope of reference sources. The holdings data include copy-specific descriptive elements, available in an optional "holdings details" display. See, for instance ESTC S111228.

This approach requires conscious effort and conscientious editing; it cannot simply be compiled from such a wildly inconsistent jungle beast as the WorldCat. One appreciates the efforts of its editors to to de-dup and group and otherwise try to make something FRBRish out of it--but FRBR is not cataloging, it's bibliography, which doesn't just happen, and requires a high degree of bibliographical intelligence and tolerance for the tedium of paying attention to 10K+ actual books, most of which are much of a muchness.

That is to say: it is especially  tedious to establish what is normal, so that exceptions may be accurately perceived--which includes knowing when copy-specific information actually does contribute to understanding of a manifestation as such.* It is also tedious, but at least of interest to many now writing in the  field of book history, to compile data about copies as such, and what they tell us generally about publishing, reading, and authorship. It is no help to them to bury such data almost randomly in general bibliographic records that are properly focused on the dissemination of texts grosso modo, data that become mostly noise in the collection-specific discovery resources of individual libraries.

*Of course, it also helps to develop one's sense of what an elusive quality "normality" may be. The contents of the latest PBSA illustrate that wonderfully, in articles about early American stereotype printing, the textual history of Virgil 1469-1850, and music printing in late c17-early c18 Italy.

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 Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 5:07 PM, Ted P Gemberling <tgemberl at uab.edu<mailto:tgemberl at uab.edu>> wrote:
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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/attachments/20151217/5b877938/attachment.html>