[DCRM-L] OCLC's IR webinar (May 13)

Thu May 14 12:09:01 MDT 2015

>Matthew Haugen wrote: it would seem our time is better spent upgrading
master records that are actually visible

>Ted Gemberling wrote:  If we concentrate on upgrading good records to
DCMB(x)

I generally do upgrade the master record. But I would add that IRs contain
more than copy specific information. Those records often have rich subject
analysis and additional access points that make the upgrade process of the
master record much more efficient.

Will

*~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~*

Will Evans

Chief Rare Materials Catalog Librarian

Library of the Boston Athenaeum

10 1/2 Beacon Street

Boston, MA   02108

Tel:  617-227-0270 ext. 224

Fax: 617-227-5266

www.bostonathenaeum.org

*From:* dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu [mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu] *On
Behalf Of *Ted P Gemberling
*Sent:* Thursday, May 14, 2015 1:36 PM
*To:* DCRM Users' Group
*Subject:* Re: [DCRM-L] OCLC's IR webinar (May 13)

Matt,

I’ve never used IR’s myself, but I understand the reason this development
hits a raw nerve is that many people on this list think there are too many
duplicates in OCLC to find good records within a reasonable amount of time.
They need the IR’s to find them.

One point I made awhile back: can we expect this problem to diminish over
time? There are no more pre-1801 books being published. If we concentrate
on upgrading good records to DCMB(x), could we gradually get to where we
can just ignore non-DCRM(x) records?

I generally ignore non-English records unless all the English records are
bad. I take pride in how little original cataloging I do. Sometimes I even
upgrade awful UKM records if they fit the item I have in a minimal way.

Probably about once a month I create a new record and then, doing a last
search before updating the holdings (i.e., adding my record to the
database), stumble on another one I missed somehow. I go through the
laborious process of moving all the detailed fields I put on my record to
the other one.

Maybe this work pattern isn’t feasible for everybody. If I was used to
using IR’s, I might think they are indispensable.

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 *Matthew C. Haugen
*Sent:* Thursday, May 14, 2015 11:58 AM
*To:* DCRM Users' Group
*Subject:* Re: [DCRM-L] OCLC's IR webinar (May 13)

For OCLC to say their data shows users don't care about IRs seems like a
self-fulfilling prophecy.  Maybe it's a small population, but if indeed
"users who care about copy-specific descriptions generally don’t see OCLC
as a useful discovery tool," that's probably because the copy-specific
information that lives in IRs is not exposed in public worldcat searches
anyway.

We don't create IRs at Columbia, and I'm perhaps too new to know all of the
background behind that, but if the records can't be publicly searched
anyway, it would seem our time is better spent upgrading master records
that are actually visible, and maintaining copy-specific information in our
local Voyager records, where our users, reference staff, etc. are more
likely to find it.

Matt

On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 12:35 PM, Noble, Richard <richard_noble at brown.edu>
wrote:

This does go some way back. As noted by Jackie Dooley, in "Ten commandments
for special collections librarians in the digital age" in *RBM* in 2009:

"Karen Calhoun noted the need to 'get over item-level description' and get
more serious about streamlining cataloging. Our generalist colleagues in
libraries have

made massive strides in this regard over the past decade or more. Isn’t it
time we do

the same? Archivists generally let go of item-level description at least 25
years ago

and have now widely embraced the Greene/Meissner mandate for 'more product,

less process.'"

As I recall that startlingly antagonistic address (at the 2008
Preconference), we were also told to "get over ourselves", and I think what
we're hearing is that OCLC would rather get over us.*  They are, in
accordance with their business model, satisficing. However that therm is
technically defined, we know that in our endeavor, this means that
Excellent + Good = Good, Good + Good Enough = Good Enough, Good Enough + OK
= OK, OK + Whatever = Whatever, and that the job is to persuade the
customers that Whatever is the New Excellence.

*Granted, the report indicates that Calhoun was addressing the matter of
archival cataloging, but my recollection of the address that it was rather
more generally and sometimes offensively "disruptive".

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 Thu, May 14, 2015 at 12:08 PM, Rouse, Lenore <rouse at cua.edu> wrote:

Will et al.,

We ARE users but many of the people making decisions about our work are
not. I see two similar trends which nobody has mentioned yet, which do or
will obscure or obliterate bibliographical difference as badly as ditching
those IRs. One is a tendency in large libraries or consortia to merge bib
records for "the same" title. In the case of certain consortia, this will
mean dispatching all local notes to the holdings record while merging all
the stuff that belongs in the bib record. The devil will be in
distinguishing the local from the general note. You all know it's not
always possible to determine whether the cancel or other feature in your
copy is present in every copy.  Even if you can separate out the local info
from the general (including 655s, 7xxs who is going to want to look at
local notes for multiple holding institutions when they are parked in the
holding record and not near related info in the bib record? Not my idea of
user-friendly. How will the important information in the local notes even
be searched if it is no longer part of the bib record? That should
theoretically be possible, though it's not clear to me that the makers of
the feudal business model are concerned with such minutiae.  Some of them
seem to believe fewer records are cheaper than more records; it's rumored
to be a great cost-savings to copy catalogers.

Another aspect of this merge mentality just came to my notice last week. I
discovered that WorldCat may stealthily merge all editions of a title
without letting the user know. Example: my search was for *Loss and gain*
by J. H. Newman, ed. by Sheridan Gilley. The search retrieved quite a slew
of hits, including a local one I was not aware of. But next to the results
is a disclaimer "Show libraries holding *just* this edition or narrow
results by format" A click on this reduced my results to one library: the
Bayerische Staatsbibliothek (!).  So, if I SEARCHED for *just* this
edition, why is WorldCat's default presenting me with 4 screens of
irrelevant nonsense?

Instead of "are we not users" maybe the question should be to the managers
making these bizarre decisions "are you not librarians?"

-- 

-- 
Matthew C. Haugen
Rare Book Cataloger
102 Butler Library
Columbia University Libraries
E-mail: matthew.haugen at columbia.edu
Phone: 212-851-2451
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/attachments/20150514/ad4ce968/attachment-0001.html>