[DCRM-L] Message from OCLC regarding Institution Records

[Dick Miller]

The LBD records are a poor substitute for IR records as they are not
retrievable or viewable except locally. This seems to me to offer a false
alternative that actually is going backwards. The IRs have enriched
retrievals as they did in RLIN both due to additional entries and keywords
and are particularly useful when comparing records for details that don't
appear in the master record.  It is sad indeed that these neatly clustered
records are being sacked with flimsy reasoning, when the myriad duplicate
OCLC records found in almost any search will remain to clutter the results.
Did OCLC actually do any study of how much access is being lost?  Retrieval
will be lost and catalogers who go the extra mile will be discouraged, while
OCLC searches will continue to produce results that are less than desirable.

Our official notification was only this month with no opportunity for input.
What a cooperative!

Dick Miller
Director for Resource Management
Lane Medical Library
Stanford University

-----Original Message-----
From: dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu [mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu] On
Behalf Of Holly Phelps
Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2015 3:51 PM
To: DCRM Users' Group
Subject: Re: [DCRM-L] Message from OCLC regarding Institution Records

"Libraries that are using IRs were notified by OCLC, but we did not make a
more public announcement so I would like to take this opportunity to share
some additional information."

When were we notified? I've been back through my OCLC emails and can find no
earlier record of this than the email we all read on Monday March 23, 2015. 

We were an RLG library. We've relied on IRs since the RLG-OCLC merger. 

Holly Phelps
Chief of Cataloging
Library Company of Philadelphia
________________________________________
From: dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu [dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu] on behalf of
Dooley,Jackie [dooleyj at oclc.org]
Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2015 5:41 PM
To: DCRM-L
Subject: [DCRM-L] Message from OCLC regarding Institution Records

I'm sending this on behalf of Sandi Jones, who is managing the IR-to-LBD
transition for OCLC.

Best wishes, Jackie

--
Jackie Dooley
Program Officer, OCLC Research

---------

Thank you for your comments and questions about OCLC's approach to
Institution Records (IRs). We understand that many of you are concerned
about the loss of IRs, and we appreciate your feedback. Libraries that are
using IRs were notified by OCLC, but we did not make a more public
announcement so I would like to take this opportunity to share some
additional information.

Institution Records were implemented in 2007 to support libraries migrating
from RLG to OCLC. The purpose of an IR is to store a copy of the
bibliographic record along with local data, but IRs don't take advantage of
cooperatively-managed master record data or future linked data initiatives.
The alternative to IRs is Local Bibliographic
Data<http://www.oclc.org/content/dam/support/documentation/cataloging/Workin
g_with_LBDs.pdf> (LBD), which enables master record data to be cooperatively
managed by thousands of experts and OCLC staff while providing
library-specific information for discovery applications. Also, LBDs support
future linked data initiatives and entities-based cataloging workflows.

The ability to create IRs via batchload will conclude in December 2015.
Connexion will support creation of IRs until June 2016 when support for IRs
will end. OCLC is offering these options to help libraries transition
information in IRs to LBDs:

1.     Delete existing IRs

2.     Create LBDs from existing IRs or from local system records

For more information, please see the
FAQ<http://www.oclc.org/connexion/resources.en.html> or send a message to
IRInfo at oclc.org<mailto:IRInfo at oclc.org>. In the coming days, we will do our
best to address all of the comments and questions you've shared and we will
update the FAQ with some additional information.

Sincerely,
Sandi

Sandi Jones
Product Manager, OCLC
Voice: 614.764.6082
E-mail: joness at oclc.org<mailto:joness at oclc.org>