[DCRM-L] Alma, Special Collections and moving to a single, shared record

[Amy Robertson]

Hi Will --

Thanks for the suggestion. It's *possible* coding the 040 might provide
some restrictions but we are still pretty far from understanding the
various limits that are possible in the admin settings. If it is possible
it would only protect the records we didn't overlap with -- unfortunately
we have been unable to find out how many will overlap with the records that
are loaded prior to ours.

On Fri, Feb 2, 2018 at 9:01 AM, Will Evans <evans at bostonathenaeum.org>
wrote:

> Hi Amy,
>
>
>
> Is there any way to protect your data enhancements by coding the 040 with
> “$e dcrmb” or any its of forerunners?
>
>
>
> Best,
>
> Will
>
>
>
>
>
> *~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~*
>
> Will Evans
>
> National Endowment for the Humanities
>
> Chief Librarian in Charge of Technical Services
>
> Library of the Boston Athenaeum
>
> 10 1/2 Beacon Street
> <https://maps.google.com/?q=10+1/2+Beacon+Street+Boston,+MA%C2%A0%C2%A0+02108&entry=gmail&source=g>
>
> Boston, MA   02108
> <https://maps.google.com/?q=10+1/2+Beacon+Street+Boston,+MA%C2%A0%C2%A0+02108&entry=gmail&source=g>
>
>
>
> Tel:  617-227-0270 ext. 243 <(617)%20227-0270>
>
> Fax: 617-227-5266 <(617)%20227-5266>
>
> www.bostonathenaeum.org
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.bostonathenaeum.org_&d=DwMFaQ&c=U0G0XJAMhEk_X0GAGzCL7Q&r=Ccmr2OuUJ8eW2hnxd74xaNcyu_MTx_PDxUlbVFcpDOQ&m=GyepDiGFsDUJRZ0mOcDfl9vVHcIaaKHxdrOrt4aW7JE&s=EH9ZA-FAcPV2oKJSPzp3TwLRE2lOQYTAkYxbtqmCGK8&e=>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* DCRM-L [mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu] *On Behalf Of *Amy
> Robertson
> *Sent:* Friday, February 02, 2018 8:07 AM
> *To:* DCRM Users' Group
> *Subject:* [DCRM-L] Alma, Special Collections and moving to a single,
> shared record
>
>
>
> Hello all --
>
> I'm not sure if this question is appropriate here but I'm hoping those
> with more experience than me will have some thoughts on this problem.
>
>
> We are part of a consortium about to migrate to Alma and to a single
> record. The single record, called the master record, is determined by the
> record load. Each institution's records are loaded one by one into the
> shared catalog called the Network Zone. The master record is the first
> unique OCLC record loaded -- subsequent copies are linked to the master
> record. No fields from the subsequent copies are retained unless they are
> tagged $9 LOCAL Our institution's records will be loaded 7th -- so we will
> have many instances where just our holdings will be linked and our original
> bib will not be loaded.
>
>
>
> We are concerned that we will lose enhancements, especially in our special
> collections records, and especially those for rare books from the hand
> press era, (as well as any records we add post migration).
>
>
>
> As an example, we might have a record in our current ILS that is a match
> to an OCLC record but has been enhanced by our cataloger with both local
> notes unique to our copy as well enhancements that apply to the work as a
> whole.
>
>
>
> As I mentioned above, truly local notes are protected with $9 LOCAL but
> the other enhancements would not be.
>
>
>
> If a record is migrated into the Network Zone, other institutions who have
> the same title can change any field that doesn't have the $9 LOCAL or they
> may choose to overlay the record. In such a case, enhancements that aren't
> local notes would be lost such as:
>
>
>
> *245 -- original OCLC title was abridged -- cataloger extended the
> transcription*
>
> *264 -- cataloger extended transcription to include publisher's address
> from the title page*
>
> *546 -- language note added*
>
> *505 -- cataloger added contents from the title page *
>
> *Signature statement added*
>
> *Genre headings added*
>
> *Additional subject headings added*
>
> *Access point for publisher added*
>
> *752 -- hierarchical place name added*
>
>
>
> We have confirmed through Ex Libris that there is no way to protect these
> fields in the Network Zone. An option that has been suggested is to move
> the 035 OCLC data into another field thereby preventing the records we are
> concerned about from being loaded into the Network Zone. If this happens,
> the records can only be viewed by searching our institution's instance of
> Alma -- a consortium search would not return these records. This isn't
> ideal since we would like to have maximum exposure for these unique
> materials.
>
>
>
> It seems to boil down to either we:
>
>
>
> --load the records into the Network Zone but lose any enhancements we've
> made to records that don't fall under $LOCAL
>
>
>
> OR
>
>
>
> -- load the records only into the Institution Zone and lose Network Zone
> exposure for the materials
>
> There has also been the suggestion to reload our records into OCLC since
> having OCLC numbers that don't overlap with other records in our consortium
> would ensure that our special collections records would be "master" records
> in the shared Network Zone. But this seems like bad OCLC practice.
>
>
>
> Has anyone encountered this situation or have any thoughts on it?
>
> Thanks in advance for any advice!
>
>
>
> --
>
> Amy Robertson
>
> Coordinator of Original Cataloging
>
> American University
>



-- 
Amy
Cataloging Services Unit
202-885-3568
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/attachments/20180202/27cccd60/attachment.html>