[DCRM-L] What Belongs in a Master Record?

[Deborah J. Leslie]

Copy-specific fields do not belong in the master record; you are doing the catalog a service by deleting them. I suspect this happens mostly with batch-loaded records.

Although not generally in favor of OCLC messing about with fields, I do wonder why their clean-up procedures do not include deletion of fields ending in ‡5.

Deborah J. Leslie, M.A., M.L.S. | Senior Cataloger, Folger Shakespeare Library | djleslie at folger.edu | 202.675-0369 | 201 East Capitol St., SE, Washington, DC 20003 | www. folger.edu | orcid.org/0000-0001-5848-5467


From: dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu [mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu] On Behalf Of Noble, Richard
Sent: Thursday, 27 October 2016 10:29
To: DCRM Revision Group List
Subject: Re: [DCRM-L] What Belongs in a Master Record?

One other thing: What's with the doubling of the 100/240 with a 700 02?

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<http://own.edu>>

On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 10:22 AM, Noble, Richard <richard_noble at brown.edu<mailto:richard_noble at brown.edu>> wrote:
I am thrashing about in the underbrush of OCLC records for incunabula, trying to create the occasional orderly clearing, but in the end I am wondering what special unwritten rules there are concerning master records that allow for such an omnium gatherum of copy-specific elements as OCLC #56414568 (LCCN 2004574211 with revisions by Detroit PL and Columbia).

The information is interesting, no doubt of that; but there are facilities for accessing it in more coherent form by way of the institutional catalogs to which OCLC provides relatively easy access. I certainly don't want most of it in my own institution's record (though it will be worth noting that the Brown and the LC copies both have a Buxheim stamp).

Would I be justified in updating this record in part to delete all copy-specific that has no bearing on identification of, or actual variation in copies of, the  manifestation? This question often arises in connection with LC-based records, of course, but lots of libraries do this sort of thing, even adding copy-specific information to the OCLC record rather than making local edits. Is this just shared cataloging with a vengeance?

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>>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/attachments/20161027/a1c69019/attachment-0001.html>