[DCRM-L] recording numbered copies publicly

Fri Dec 13 16:03:56 MST 2019

And by local holdings record, I mean a local system holdings record, not an OCLC local holdings record.

________________________________
From: DCRM-L <dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu> on behalf of Moody, Honor M. <honor_moody at harvard.edu>
Sent: Friday, December 13, 2019 5:41:33 PM
To: DCRM List <dcrm-l at lib.byu.edu>
Subject: Re: [DCRM-L] recording numbered copies publicly

Ah, blinded by my own context.

To clarify, I am referring to a 562 note in a local holdings record, not in a master record in Connexion.

While I am sympathetic to the use case of showing users all known holdings of a limited edition and their designations, I do not believe that the addition of 562s or other item level data is appropriate for a Connexion master record, even if $5s are added. This is just one of the reasons why I hope to see functional linked data implementations in my professional lifetime!

Best,
Honor

________________________________
From: DCRM-L <dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu> on behalf of Angela R Cope <acope at uwm.edu>
Sent: Friday, December 13, 2019 4:14:05 PM
To: rbrandt at library.berkeley.edu <rbrandt at library.berkeley.edu>; DCRM Users' Group <dcrm-l at lib.byu.edu>
Subject: Re: [DCRM-L] recording numbered copies publicly

Various 5xx fields (other than plain 500s) display and/or search differently over time depending on the system and settings. We've used 590s as well as 852 holding record notes for copy specific information.

But, isn't the question about including that information in the OCLC/WorldCat record? I think it would be helpful to have that information there. Signatures, annotations, limited editions, etc.

Angie

________________________________
From: DCRM-L <dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu> on behalf of Mascaro, Michelle <mmascaro at ucsd.edu>
Sent: Friday, December 13, 2019 2:46 PM
To: rbrandt at library.berkeley.edu <rbrandt at library.berkeley.edu>; DCRM Users' Group <dcrm-l at lib.byu.edu>
Subject: Re: [DCRM-L] recording numbered copies publicly

Honor,

I also agree with you, and it has been standard practice to at 2 of the 3 libraries I have worked at during my career.  The other library made these notes for special collections materials, but avoided certain copy specific notes for the general collection under the  argument that highlighting such features in the catalog might make the items more prone to theft.  I do not know if that is the concern you are running into here.

Michelle

From: DCRM-L <dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu> On Behalf Of Randal S. BRANDT
Sent: Friday, December 13, 2019 12:26 PM
To: DCRM Users' Group <dcrm-l at lib.byu.edu>
Subject: Re: [DCRM-L] recording numbered copies publicly

Honor,

I also agree with you. The Bancroft Library routinely records the copy number in a public note (we use 590). I'm also curious about what harm it could do to give this information publicly.

Randy

On Fri, Dec 13, 2019 at 12:18 PM Lapka, Francis <francis.lapka at yale.edu<mailto:francis.lapka at yale.edu>> wrote:

Hi Honor. I agree with your take, which I believe is common practice. Could you elaborate on “… due to concerns that it identifies a limited run copy.” What harm could this cause, and to whom?

Francis

From: DCRM-L <dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu<mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu>> On Behalf Of Moody, Honor M.
Sent: Friday, December 13, 2019 2:39 PM
To: DCRM Users' Group <dcrm-l at lib.byu.edu<mailto:dcrm-l at lib.byu.edu>>
Subject: Re: [DCRM-L] recording numbered copies publicly

I received an email off list, so wanted to clarify—this is in reference to a recording specific copy number in a 562, in addition to the generic limitation statement in the bib record.

H

From: DCRM-L <dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu<mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu>> On Behalf Of Moody, Honor M.
Sent: Friday, December 13, 2019 2:32 PM
To: DCRM Users' Group <dcrm-l at lib.byu.edu<mailto:dcrm-l at lib.byu.edu>>
Subject: [DCRM-L] recording numbered copies publicly

Happy Friday, everyone.

I had always thought that recording the number of a numbered copy publicly was not only useful for patrons who might want to look at a specific copy, but was also considered good theft prevention/theft retrieval practice. However, I’ve recently been asked to either stop recording these, or to record the  number privately, in part due to concerns that it identifies a limited run copy.

I am wondering if folks on this list have any thoughts one way or the other—I have been wrong before, but if my understanding is correct, I would like to push back on this request.

Best,

Honor

Honor Moody

Metadata Creation Manager

Harvard Library Information and Technical Services

honor_moody at harvard.edu<mailto:honor_moody at harvard.edu>

--

Randal S. Brandt

The Bancroft Library | University of California, Berkeley

510.643.2275 | rbrandt at library.berkeley.edu<mailto:rbrandt at library.berkeley.edu>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/attachments/20191213/29dc7200/attachment.html>