[DCRM-L] Discontinuation of OCLC's institutional records program

Fri Mar 27 07:38:58 MDT 2015

There is a well-intentioned idea at the core of the change proposed by OCLC. Richard notes:

The purpose of WCDS is to replace "institution records" at the cloud level and at the institutional level. An institutional "catalog" will be simply those records that represent institutional holdings, which will be presented in the local context by way of a filter.

I think institutional catalogs in this general form – combining Manifestation descriptions in the cloud with rich Item-level descriptions maintained locally (perhaps) – could be a very good thing. We should treat descriptions of Manifestations with the same rigor (and aversion to duplication) as any other kind of “authority.” Instead, most agencies edit and improve Manifestation data in local systems, where the improvements don’t benefit others (I’m as guilty of this as anybody). This practice represents a failure of cooperative cataloging. It leaves us with local catalogs in which the majority of records are inferior (in many cases, significantly so) to descriptions of the same resource in somebody else’s catalog.

The model proposed by OCLC is a good one, but OCLC’s implementation of it (via WCDS, or any other product) cannot satisfy the requirements of our community, for the reasons Richard describes (too messy, too much duplication). We have abundant evidence that OCLC does a lousy job of treating Manifestations like authorities. And OCLC’s decision to deny users access to the others’ LBD is downright antagonistic to the goals of our community.

I think we can create and maintain something better – a model that meets our needs. Our database could build upon models such as ESTC and CERL’s HPB database. To ensure quality and consistency of descriptions, we could require DCRM for all contributions. Let’s not invest our time into anything that requires gated (subscription-only) access.

Francis

From: dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu [mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu] On Behalf Of Noble, Richard
Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2015 2:17 PM
To: DCRM Users' Group
Subject: Re: [DCRM-L] Discontinuation of OCLC's institutional records program

In any such discussions one will need to be aware that the perspective of the DCRM Community, so to call it (pretty accurately, I think), and that of the purveyors of the WorldCat Discovery Service, are rather at variance--or operate according to different geometries...

The purpose of WCDS is to replace "institution records" at the cloud level and at the institutional level. An institutional "catalog" will be simply those records that represent institutional holdings, which will be presented in the local context by way of a filter. They provide for item-level characteristics, not by having what are essentially (from their point of view) duplicate records that incorporate that information, but by including linked LBD that will display only to the institution's users. It's simple enough--think of ESTC and the like, which make provision for copy-level notes in the holdings, except that the LBD will not be available except to the individual subscribers.

We all know, however, that the WorldCat is a messy database, rife with duplication and confusion, partly as a result of the effort to incorporate the entire World's records in all their variety. It has to be cleaned up for the model to work. One good reference that I've run across for the nature of the clean-up is the article "GLIMIR: manifestation and content clustering within WorldCat", in code{4}lib 17 (2012-06-01)

http://journal.code4lib.org/articles/6812<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__journal.code4lib.org_articles_6812&d=AwMFaQ&c=-dg2m7zWuuDZ0MUcV7Sdqw&r=t7GDkvcZa922K6iya7a6MxgVxxw7OjL0m1rPBXkflk4&m=N5gsNqRB2yDQCbOBxE7o35tJ99qLy5e3-QrUTsGjdFo&s=_UptFYPtmJwufernm5PKtDsPEno5g5x25r3pzW9ES_4&e=>

The deliberate maintenance of whole individual institutional records is an unrewarding distraction from this process. The best one might hope for (as James Weinheimer has suggested, rather wishfully, on AUTOCAT) would be to preserve the current IRs as they stand as a reference database, but that's a pretty large act of charity.

Even when they were created, the IRs were, as expressed in "Cataloging: Use bibliographic institution records"

http://www.oclc.org/content/dam/support/connexion/documentation/client/cataloging/IRrecords/institutionrecords.pdf<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.oclc.org_content_dam_support_connexion_documentation_client_cataloging_IRrecords_institutionrecords.pdf&d=AwMFaQ&c=-dg2m7zWuuDZ0MUcV7Sdqw&r=t7GDkvcZa922K6iya7a6MxgVxxw7OjL0m1rPBXkflk4&m=N5gsNqRB2yDQCbOBxE7o35tJ99qLy5e3-QrUTsGjdFo&s=t_QmLpcRxrgW6C_1TjggFVyhlnHfJiQBhegBoTGae4I&e=>

envisioned only as a means to preserve item-level information: "These records contain additional cataloging data, such as local call numbers, holdings locations within the institution, or local or copy-specific notes."

What we are left with is, we can only hope, the continuation of DCRM records as equivalent to "parallel" records, as a way of maintaining any semblance of such cataloging in a consolidated Cloud environment. If OCLC is willing to continue regarding our records under that rubric, they will want to limit multiple representations of the same entity to a single set of master records created in different cataloging languages and under different description conventions (in whatever combinations of those two criteria). That leaves the institution with the option of attaching its holdings to 040 $e dcrm(x) records, and us with a parallel universe within which to contribute to and enhance each other's work (and for the good of researchers, one might add). The other desideratum would be provision for viewing all of the local bibliographic data associated with the record--ideally to all users, if they could be talked into that.

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<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__own.edu&d=AwMFaQ&c=-dg2m7zWuuDZ0MUcV7Sdqw&r=t7GDkvcZa922K6iya7a6MxgVxxw7OjL0m1rPBXkflk4&m=N5gsNqRB2yDQCbOBxE7o35tJ99qLy5e3-QrUTsGjdFo&s=JeXs0VEqTair8C5mv4ndoJethME89pOs3-ofqgsSUxY&e=>>

On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 1:19 PM, Schneider, Nina <nschneider at humnet.ucla.edu<mailto:nschneider at humnet.ucla.edu>> wrote:
I’m happy to approach them, but will need to investigate who is convening these groups.

Nina

From: dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu<mailto: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 Deborah J. Leslie
Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2015 10:14 AM
To: DCRM Users' Group
Subject: Re: [DCRM-L] Discontinuation of OCLC's institutional records program

Maybe the new conveners of the TSDG can arrange a joint meeting with Curators and Conservators or Public Services and have Jackie talk; the loss of IR's concerns more than just catalogers.

Deborah J. Leslie | Folger Shakespeare Library | djleslie at folger.edu<mailto:djleslie at folger.edu> | 202.675-0369<tel:202.675-0369> | 201 East Capitol St., SE, Washington, DC 20003 | www. folger.edu<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__folger.edu&d=AwMFaQ&c=-dg2m7zWuuDZ0MUcV7Sdqw&r=t7GDkvcZa922K6iya7a6MxgVxxw7OjL0m1rPBXkflk4&m=N5gsNqRB2yDQCbOBxE7o35tJ99qLy5e3-QrUTsGjdFo&s=tAh73MobLLgfGiHKTC_eaOZfKmsigIPcJZK3RXxnNKI&e=>

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 Schneider, Nina
Sent: Wednesday, 25 March 2015 12:35
To: DCRM Users' Group
Subject: Re: [DCRM-L] Discontinuation of OCLC's institutional records program

I’ve been in touch with Jackie Dooley who has offered to have an OCLC rep be available to us during ALA Annual in June. I can schedule a period for discussion about this during the RBMS Bibliographic Standards Committee meeting, since I think the Technical Services Discussion Group is on hiatus this year.

For those of you who would like to know more, there is an FAQ page.

http://www.oclc.org/connexion/resources.en.html#questions<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.oclc.org_connexion_resources.en.html-23questions&d=AwMFaQ&c=-dg2m7zWuuDZ0MUcV7Sdqw&r=t7GDkvcZa922K6iya7a6MxgVxxw7OjL0m1rPBXkflk4&m=N5gsNqRB2yDQCbOBxE7o35tJ99qLy5e3-QrUTsGjdFo&s=vjJegeB7X_18Krfwd4L8HPjdXk_euOm7tzM0an2xMVs&e=>

+---------------
Nina M. Schneider
Chair, RBMS Bibliographic Standards Committee

Rare Books Librarian
William Andrews Clark Memorial Library
2520 Cimarron Street
Los Angeles, CA  90018
(323) 731-8529<tel:%28323%29%20731-8529>

nschneider at humnet.ucla.edu<mailto:nschneider at humnet.ucla.edu>
http://www.humnet.ucla.edu/humnet/clarklib/<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.humnet.ucla.edu_humnet_clarklib_&d=AwMFaQ&c=-dg2m7zWuuDZ0MUcV7Sdqw&r=t7GDkvcZa922K6iya7a6MxgVxxw7OjL0m1rPBXkflk4&m=N5gsNqRB2yDQCbOBxE7o35tJ99qLy5e3-QrUTsGjdFo&s=Gd0HLWitg9hcjXnfPvNQSmBQ7GcZWsu8p3tBvOiZkIw&e=>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/attachments/20150327/81a06c7d/attachment-0001.html>