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

Tue Feb 6 07:01:11 MST 2018

Further clarification of U of MN's situation--while we share records among
the U of Mn campuses, we do not use the Network zone for this--our records
are in the Institution zone. Only e-resource records are in the Network
zone. So it's not analogous to Amy's situation.

On Fri, Feb 2, 2018 at 11:09 AM, Claire Stuckey <c-stuc1 at umn.edu> wrote:

> Hello Amy,
> I wasn't involved directly with our migration to Alma, but I consulted
> with our other cataloger here, Sarah Yates, who was; she replied: "We
> didn't have to deal with anything like this since we didn't merge records
> when we migrated to Alma (thank goodness). Has anyone so far suggested that
> she try to arrange for her library's special collections records to load
> first instead of seventh? Maybe the order is already set in stone, but
> that's the only thing I can think of other than the imperfect options she
> already mentions in her question."
>
> I'll just clarify that before Alma, the law library at U of MN did not
> share records with the other campus libraries so it's possible we were in a
> unique position to be able to have more control. We do share
> records/bibliographic records now, but not for our rare collections.
>
> Claire
>
> On Fri, Feb 2, 2018 at 8:41 AM, Amy Robertson <dawson at american.edu> wrote:
>
>> 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 <(202)%20885-3568>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Claire M. Stuckey, M.A., LPCC, NBC-HWC
> Library Program Specialist I, U of MN Law Library
> 229 19th Ave. S., #120, Minneapolis, MN 55455
> <https://maps.google.com/?q=229+19th+Ave.+S.,+%23120,+Minneapolis,+MN+55455+612&entry=gmail&source=g>
> 612-624-7536 <(612)%20624-7536> law.umn.edu/library
>
> Graduate Faculty & Advisor, U of MN Earl E. Bakken Center for Spirituality
> & Healing
> 420 Delaware St. SE, Minneapolis, MN 55455
> <https://maps.google.com/?q=420+Delaware+St.+SE,+Minneapolis,+MN+55455&entry=gmail&source=g>
> Office hrs: By appt. c-stuc1 at umn.edu 612-490-6761 <(612)%20490-6761>
> csh.umn.edu
>

-- 
Christine DeZelar-Tiedman
Metadata and Emerging Technologies Librarian
University of Minnesota Libraries
160 Wilson Library
309 19th Ave. S.
Minneapolis, MN 55455
(612) 625-0381
dezel002 at umn.edu
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/attachments/20180206/c90c885f/attachment-0001.html>