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

[Gemberling, Ted P]

I’m not sure what that’s about. I know some people want to eliminate the 240 in favor of the 700 $t because the 700 is often more controllable. Maybe the cataloger wanted to “cover both bases,” as the saying goes. I’ve seen debates about 700 vs. 240 on the PCC list and wasn’t sure what to think about the issue.

I agree with Deborah on removing copy-specific information.

Ted Gemberling
UAB Lister Hill Library

From: dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu [mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu] On Behalf Of Noble, Richard
Sent: Thursday, October 27, 2016 9:29 AM
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/20161027/4acf56d6/attachment.html>