[DCRM-L] OCLC's duplicate detection & resolution software: two questions for the rare and archival materials communities
Rouse, Lenore
rouse at cua.edu
Fri Sep 4 10:34:44 MDT 2015
This is probably a dumb question, but even without amremm in a record,
under what circumstance would OCLC ever merge a record for a
_manuscript_, which by definition is unique? I've operated under the
assumption that I would never have to worry about our ms. records being
merged.
Re Jackie's question - I now catalog practically everything as DCRM but
this was not the case in this institution until perhaps 10 years ago or
whenever I wised up. I haven't recataloged AACR2 records into dcrm
either. So there are indeed many post 1801 items that might easily
succumb to merging. I'd argue for an 1840 or 1850 cutoff date but that
might be too conservative for some.
Lenore
--
Lenore M. Rouse
Curator, Rare Books and Special Collections
The Catholic University of America
Room 214, Mullen Library
620 Michigan Avenue N.E.
Washington, D.C. 20064
PHONE: 202 319-5090
E-MAIL: rouse at cua.edu
RBSC BLOG: http://ascendonica.blogspot.com/
On 9/4/2015 11:37 AM, Kate Moriarty wrote:
> Thank you for this, Jackie and John.
>
> As others have stated, I would be in favor of moving the cut-off date
> to a later date, though I'll leave it to those with a larger post-1801
> collection to suggest a specific date.
>
> Jackie, regarding your 2nd question, I believe you mentioned last year
> that OCLC would be adding "amremm" to the list of 040 $e DDR
> exemptions. You said it wouldn't be easy - have you had any success
> with it?
>
> And in answer to your last question, we regularly code the 040 $e here
> and, at least from the records I see in OCLC, it seems like others do,
> too.
>
> Thanks,
> Kate
>
> On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 9:51 AM, Chapman,John <chapmanj at oclc.org
> <mailto:chapmanj at oclc.org>> wrote:
>
> Richard and Francis,
> We are asking if the 1801 cutoff (or the 1901 cartographic
> exception date) need to be adjusted, but are not suggesting that
> it should be earlier. We would expect that, if a change is agreed
> upon, the dates would be later.
> We are asking the question of the DCRM-L community to see if there
> is any consensus that can be reached about a change, or if the
> current scheme is logical and can remain. The context that Richard
> provided should be helpful in the discussion.
> --
> John Chapman
> OCLC · Product Manager, Metadata Services
> 6565 Kilgour Place, Dublin, OH 43017 USA
> T +1-614-761-5272 <tel:%2B1-614-761-5272>
>
>
> From: <dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu
> <mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu>> on behalf of "Noble, Richard"
> Reply-To: DCRM Users' Group
> Date: Friday, September 4, 2015 at 10:23 AM
> To: DCRM Users' Group
> Subject: Re: [DCRM-L] OCLC's duplicate detection & resolution
> software: two questions for the rare and archival materials
> communities
>
> Quick response: the cut-off for books should, if anything, be
> later, not earlier. The year 1801 is arbitrary, as much
> established as it is in national bibliographies and the like. It
> seems to be understood as the end of the "hand-press period",
> which is historically not the case. For English books that would
> be no earlier than 1820, and for some continental books even later
> (I see German books of the 1840s printed direct from type on
> handmade laid paper, for instance).
>
> But the bibliographical significance of "hand-press" has been
> great exaggerated. While printers become more and more adept at
> covering their tracks as the c19 proceeds, bibliographical
> analysis and description are very much applicable to post-1801
> books and post "hand-press" books, for the most basic of our FRBR
> purposes: the identification of manifestations, and, at the most
> learned level, the specification of diagnostic evidence for
> distinction of manifestations, as well as explicit accounting for
> evidence of variation within the body of items that constitute a
> manifestation.
>
> That said, I suppose--assuming that the exemption of dcrm records
> from automatic de-duping continues--the idea is to establish
> criteria by which to exempt a range of non-dcrm records as well.
> Earlier versions of dcrm tended to emphasize 1801/"hand-press
> period" as a cutoff for application of the special rules (and the
> consequent finer-grained analysis of supporting evidence and
> variation), so it it made sense of a kind to specify that range.
> As tempting as it is, however, to limit dcrm to hand-press books
> because it is easier to analyze and describe them, I know from
> considerable experience that post-1801 books printed from plates,
> perhaps based on mechanical composition, are equally and more
> subtly variable.
>
> The whole body of pre-1801 works forms, I presume, a relatively
> small percentage of the material represented in the database,
> though the mass of duplicate records generated by uploading of
> incommensurably cataloged material is considerable. The problem is
> not so much the conflation of different manifestations
> indifferently described, as it is the loss of information that
> takes place when merged records are expunged, which precludes
> conscious and focused comparison--by catalogers well versed in the
> vagaries of legacy and minimal cataloging--as a check on de-duping
> errors.
>
> I would be dismayed to see an irreversible process applied to an
> even greater range of materials than before. IRs being a lost
> cause, this would be mitigated to some extent if records
> represented in 019 fields could be preserved for
> inspection (beyond the current brief grace period) in such a way
> as not to impede the operations of the WorldCat as a whole. But as
> Francis Lapka pointed out, the regression of the date cutoff does
> seem to be a retraction, not an expansion, of safeguards.
>
> RICHARD NOBLE :: RARE MATERIALS CATALOGUER :: JOHN HAY LIBRARY
> BROWN UNIVERSITY :: PROVIDENCE, R.I. 02912 :: 401-863-1187
> <tel:401-863-1187>
> <Richard_Noble at Br <mailto:RICHARD_NOBLE at BROWN.EDU>own.edu
> <http://own.edu>>
>
> On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 9:00 AM, Lapka, Francis
> <francis.lapka at yale.edu <mailto:francis.lapka at yale.edu>> wrote:
>
> Jackie,
>
> I'm grateful for your message, and pleased to hear that OCLC
> is considering changes "to expand and strengthen the
> safeguards we already apply to bibliographic records for
> unique, rare, and/or archival materials."
>
> At first blush, it would seem that moving the chronological
> exception for de-duping to an earlier date might *weaken* the
> safeguards, since it would make the exception apply to a
> smaller set of records. Could you tell us more about the
> motivation for this particular change and how it might serve
> to strengthen the safeguards?
>
> Thanks
>
> Francis
>
> On Fri, Sep 04, 2015 at 4:18 AM, Dooley,Jackie
> <dooleyj at oclc.org <mailto:dooleyj at oclc.org>> wrote:
>
> Dear DCRM-L --
>
> On behalf of my colleagues on OCLC's Metadata Quality
> Team, I'm writing to pose two questions: 1) whether the
> pre-1801 cutoff for excluding records from de-duplication
> should be changed to an earlier date, and 2) whether
> additional cataloging code symbols should be added to the
> 040 $e exception.
>
> We're considering changes to the automated Duplicate
> Detection and Resolution (DDR) software and are seeking
> community opinion before taking action. The contemplated
> changes are *intended to expand and strengthen the
> safeguards we already apply to bibliographic records for
> unique, rare, and/or archival materials*. As members of
> the rare and/or archival cataloging community, you are in
> an excellent position to provide informed advice on these
> issues.
>
> First, some background. OCLC first developed the
> capability to merge bibliographic records manually in
> 1983. During the late 1980s and early 1990s, we developed
> automated DDR software, which dealt with Books records
> only. From 2005 through 2009, OCLC developed a completely
> new version of DDR that worked with all bibliographic
> formats. From the very beginning of automated DDR back in
> 1991, *records for resources with dates of
> publication/production earlier than 1801 have been set
> aside and not processed*. More recently, in consultation
> with the American Library Association (ALA) Map and
> Geospatial Information Round Table (MAGIRT) Cataloging and
> Classification Committee (CCC), we have further *exempted
> records for cartographic materials with dates of
> publication earlier than 1901*. *In addition, *we exempt
> from DDR processing all records for resources that can be
> identified as*photographs (Material Types “pht” for
> photograph and/or “pic” for picture)*.
>
> Following discussions with representatives of the rare
> materials community several years ago, *we also exempted
> from DDR processing all records that are coded in field
> 040 subfield $e under description conventions for rare
> materials codes "bdrb", "dcrb", "dcrmb”, or “dcrms*.”
> Please note that these DDR exemptions are /not/ intended
> to apply to electronic, microform, or other reproductions,
> only to the original resources.
>
> The current DDR software is incredibly complicated and
> continues to be fine-tuned on a regular basis. Although
> this is an oversimplification of a complex process, there
> are now at least two dozen different points of comparison
> taken into consideration. Many of these comparison points
> draw data from multiple parts of a bibliographic record
> and involve manipulation of data in ways designed to
> distinguish both variations that should be equated and
> distinctions that must be recognized.
>
> As part of our ongoing efforts to improve DDR’s accuracy,
> we are reaching out again to members of the rare materials
> and archival resources communities, in particular, for
> feedback on the following questions:
>
> 1. Within the context of the materials cataloged by
> your community, are there dates other than
> pre-1801 for most resources and pre-1901 for
> cartographic materials that would make more sense
> as an exemption cutoff?
> 2. The current list of Description Convention Source
> Codes, found at
> http://www.loc.gov/standards/sourcelist/descriptive-conventions.html
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.loc.gov_standards_sourcelist_descriptive-2Dconventions.html&d=AwMGaQ&c=-dg2m7zWuuDZ0MUcV7Sdqw&r=t7GDkvcZa922K6iya7a6MxgVxxw7OjL0m1rPBXkflk4&m=kRqExyp5bTagfw4W-s3iO-qvtjTFj_59J74agId44nI&s=MJfHI5B_tV51Vx2wSKcLJQY4vkqu3ua9UEvXyUqqX8c&e=>,
> has grown much more extensive in recent years.
> Aside from the four codes already exempted
> ("bdrb", "dcrb", "dcrmb”, “dcrms”), are there
> others that it would make sense to consider
> exempting? Note that Description Convention Source
> Codes “appm”, “dacs”, “gihc”, and “dcrmg” have
> already been suggested for adding to the exemption
> list.
>
> 1. Are there other well-accepted rare and/or
> archival materials descriptive standards that
> don’t currently have their own code, and so
> are absent from the MARC Code List? If so,
> would the relevant community be willing to
> request codes from LC?
> 2. How faithfully do members of the relevant
> community actually code such records in field
> 040 subfield $e?
>
> Please reply either to the list or to me directly.
> We greatly appreciate your input.
>
> Many thanks— Jackie
>
> -
>
> Jackie Dooley
>
> Program Officer, OCLC Research
>
> 647 Camino de los Mares, Suite 108-240
>
> San Clemente, CA 92673
>
> office/home 949-492-5060 <tel:949-492-5060>
> mobile 949-295-1529 <tel:949-295-1529>
> dooleyj at oclc.org <mailto:dooleyj at oclc.org>
>
> OCLC
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.oclc.org_home.en.html-3Fcmpid-3Demailsig-5Flogo&d=AwMGaQ&c=-dg2m7zWuuDZ0MUcV7Sdqw&r=t7GDkvcZa922K6iya7a6MxgVxxw7OjL0m1rPBXkflk4&m=kRqExyp5bTagfw4W-s3iO-qvtjTFj_59J74agId44nI&s=dnyUTanaqjBHSVV1FdTIEoNm6hDTbjlsRHIvE8OGviQ&e=>
>
> OCLC.org
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.oclc.org_home.en.html-3Fcmpid-3Demailsig-5Flink&d=AwMGaQ&c=-dg2m7zWuuDZ0MUcV7Sdqw&r=t7GDkvcZa922K6iya7a6MxgVxxw7OjL0m1rPBXkflk4&m=kRqExyp5bTagfw4W-s3iO-qvtjTFj_59J74agId44nI&s=TS_w0TQQ5p-iCY6URnpdmON9jBXJFIqhge-Llx6W-ms&e=>/research
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Kate S. Moriarty, MSW, MLS | Rare Book Catalog Librarian |
> Associate Professor | Pius XII Memorial Library | Room 320-2
> Saint Louis University | 3650 Lindell Blvd . | St. Louis, MO 63108
> | (314) 977-3024 (tel) | (314) 977-3108 (fax) | moriarks at slu.edu
> <mailto:moriarks at slu.edu> | http://libraries.slu.edu/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/attachments/20150904/fc143788/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the DCRM-L
mailing list