[DCRM-L] local data in OCLC

[Allison Rich]

I am in complete agreement with Francis with regards to the #5 usage.

~Allison

> I think it would do more harm than good to expand the use of 500 ‡5 
> and other non-local note fields for our local data.
>
> From a practical standpoint – I’ll spare everyone my objections on the 
> grounds of proper data modeling – my primary objection to using 500 ‡5 
> in this context is illustrated by the /Plexus/ screenshot in Deborah’s 
> initial email. In that record, there are three notes concerning the 
> SIU copy that are presented (in Worldcat.org) as information 
> concerning the Manifestation. There’s no indication that the 
> information applies to a single copy. That’s disastrous. Even if OCLC 
> corrected its display to show that this is item-specific data, do we 
> really trust it to present the item-specific information in a coherent 
> manner if **multiple** institutions have recorded local information?
>
> Consider also the impact from the standpoint of cataloging workflow. 
> For as long as we’re importing records from OCLC to our local 
> catalogs, I’d rather not have to do more weeding out of local 
> information that doesn’t apply to my copy. Let’s endeavor to leave 
> Master Records free of copy-specific information.
>
> Francis
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/attachments/20150904/776c9bed/attachment.html>