[DCRM-L] OCLC's duplicate detection & resolution software: two questions for the rare and archival materials communities

[Maria Oldal]

Jackie,

I suggest adding cco to the list of source code exemptions.

That brings up another question that has been preying on my mind. A number
of the Morgan's unique items have been subjected to merges over the years,
and I suspect that this has been the experience of other OCLC members who
contribute records for unique items. I am thinking particularly of
graphics, which can be either unique or items issued in multiples. One way
to protect records for this type of material is to use a special cataloging
code, such as dcrm or gihc, but not every cataloging agency applies these.
For example, recently I assisted a colleague from another library with
cataloging two such items in rda, see OCLC 914910871 and OCLC 914906996. In
the absence of a special cataloging code in the 040, there is nothing to
prevent records for unique graphics from being merged. It occurred to me
that another way to block merges for unique material might be to exclude
records that contain certain values in the 007 Nonprojected graphic 007/01
(Specific Material Designation). Values such as d=drawing or e=painting are
used for material that is by definition unique, and therefore would
indicate that the record should not be merged.

While the above approach may be helpful for graphics, it will not extend to
3D art and cultural objects that are unique. I welcome any ideas on how
these might be excluded from unintentional merges.

Maria

On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 3:10 PM, Will Evans <evans at bostonathenaeum.org>
wrote:

> I’m glad that OCLC is open to amending the cutoff date. I agree with
> Richard that 19th century books can and often do contain subtle
> variations at the manifestation level, and moreover, I often apply
> bibliographical analysis and description to items of that time period. Is
> it insanity to ask that the cutoff date be moved to 1901 for books as well
> as cartographic material? Truthfully, if I had my druthers, I’d like to see
> the cutoff date moved to 1930, which would get us through the bulk of the
> private press books, works that are rife with subtle variations.
>
>
>
> I code almost all my bib records “dcrmb” often as a defensive measure,
> whether it’s a record for an incunabule or a 21st century artist book.
> Additionally, I would like to see “appm”, “dacs”, “gihc”, “dcrms” and
> “dcrmg”
>
>
>
> Best,
>
> 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 *Chapman,John
> *Sent:* Friday, September 04, 2015 10:52 AM
> *To:* DCRM Users' Group
> *Subject:* Re: [DCRM-L] OCLC's duplicate detection & resolution software:
> two questions for the rare and archival materials communities
>
>
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
> *From: *<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
>
> <Richard_Noble at Br <RICHARD_NOBLE at BROWN.EDU>own.edu>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 9:00 AM, Lapka, Francis <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> 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
> mobile 949-295-1529
> dooleyj at oclc.org
>
> [image: 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
>
>
>
>
>
>
>



-- 
Maria Oldal
Head of Cataloging and Database Maintenance
The Morgan Library & Museum
225 Madison Avenue
New York, NY  10016-3403

TEL: 212-590-0382
FAX: 212-768-5680
NET: oldalm at themorgan.org

Visit CORSAIR, the Museum's comprehensive collections catalog:
http://corsair.themorgan.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/attachments/20150921/2466f58c/attachment-0001.html>