[DCRM-L] OCLC Member Merge and rare materials

Tue Jan 8 10:09:12 MST 2019

We are in the vetting stage of the Member Merge project, and although I
can't find it in writing, I seem to remember being told that we were not
supposed to be merging rare materials (which at this stage seemed fine, but
not indefinitely). I certainly would be happy to see some more information,
and, frankly, I'm sick of reporting all of the duplicates and crossing my
fingers. I would be thrilled if additional training were available, and if
possible RBMS BSC guidance.

Best,

Jennifer

On Fri, Jan 4, 2019 at 4:18 PM Robert Maxwell <robert_maxwell at byu.edu>
wrote:

> Ryan,
>
>
>
> We have been participating for a bit more than a year now. I think OCLC is
> aware of treatment of rare materials, and I did bring it up when we were
> doing our training, but it certainly wouldn’t hurt to ask OCLC to emphasize
> it more in their training. I have merged a few records for early printed
> books, I believe correctly (!), so I don’t think it would be right for
> training just to say “never merge records coded ‘dcrmb’” or pre-1801 or
> whatever, there are plenty of inappropriate duplicates in OCLC for early
> and rare materials that really should be merged (and since their
> machine-merge programs—I think—do take a hands-off approach to these
> materials, it is appropriate for human catalogers to have  look and merge
> if appropriate). Perhaps some of us could work with OCLC to develop a short
> addition to the training concerning this issue.
>
>
>
> Bob
>
>
>
> Robert L. Maxwell
> Ancient Languages and Special Collections Librarian
> 6728 Harold B. Lee Library
> Brigham Young University
> Provo, UT 84602
> (801)422-5568
>
>
>
> *From:* DCRM-L <dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu> *On Behalf Of *Ryan Hildebrand
> *Sent:* Friday, January 4, 2019 1:04 PM
> *To:* 'DCRM Users' Group' <dcrm-l at lib.byu.edu>
> *Subject:* [DCRM-L] OCLC Member Merge and rare materials
>
>
>
> I am wondering if there are others who have completed OCLC’s Member Merge
> program (which allows us to merge duplicates in OCLC) and were left feeling
> concerned over the treatment of rare/special materials in the
> documentation. Throughout the training, I was surprised that there was
> little discussion of rare materials, or the significance of 040 |e codes
> for rare/special standards. They are mentioned in the documentation and in
> a training video, but I am not aware of deeper treatment.
>
>
>
> I’ve linked to the documentation is below, but have also pasted in the
> relevant parts below my signature. My concern is that it appears one is
> guided to potentially merge rare-coded records based on guidelines that are
> at odds with DCRM and its predecessors (although to be clear, catalogers
> are to consult Bibliographic Formats and Standards Chapter 4: When to input
> a new record). There is an explicit rare materials exception, but one is
> not guided to evaluate duplication in terms of cataloging codes. At least
> that is how I read it. The exception is also problematic in that it
> correlates rare rules with only pre-1801 materials.
>
>
>
> I hope I do not sound overly critical, as Member Merge is an extremely
> valuable program. But I am curious to know what others think, and if
> outreach to OCLC seems appropriate.
>
>
>
> Best,
>
> Ryan
>
>
>
> Ryan Hildebrand
>
> Authorities & Special Collections Cataloging Librarian
>
> University of Oregon Libraries
>
> 1299 University of Oregon
>
> Eugene OR 97403-1299
>
> (541) 346-1844
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Link:
> https://help.oclc.org/WorldCat/Metadata_Quality/Member_Merge/Guidelines_for_merging_duplicate_books_records%3A_A_field-by-field_comparison
> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fhelp.oclc.org%2FWorldCat%2FMetadata_Quality%2FMember_Merge%2FGuidelines_for_merging_duplicate_books_records%253A_A_field-by-field_comparison&data=02%7C01%7Cfrancis.lapka%40yale.edu%7Cf5df418ff5f146ffe0e908d67268e8c0%7Cdd8cbebb21394df8b4114e3e87abeb5c%7C0%7C0%7C636822192260506293&sdata=syUWeADtb1NE%2F0GE02rlXwJ7%2BwXglKsZk%2BibUiQpD2I%3D&reserved=0>
>
>
>
> Copy/paste:
> Introduction
>
> Complete instructions are to be used in conjunction with Bibliographic
> Formats and Standards (BFAS) Chapter 4: When to input a new record
> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.oclc.org%2Fbibformats%2Fen%2Finput.html&data=02%7C01%7Cfrancis.lapka%40yale.edu%7Cf5df418ff5f146ffe0e908d67268e8c0%7Cdd8cbebb21394df8b4114e3e87abeb5c%7C0%7C0%7C636822192260516306&sdata=eLiCxbbwhlBXNVOFkDX%2BOv%2BBvhX4%2FZEOns%2BgmVOWwoU%3D&reserved=0>
> .
>
> Regardless of cataloging rules, there should only be one bibliographic
> record representing the same item, per language of cataloging.
> Variable fields 010
>
>    - Records may be merged regardless of the absence or presence of a 010
>    field. Records with a difference in control numbers issued by the same
>    agency may be potential duplicate records. Compare fields 245 through 5xx
>    to justify a merge.
>    - *Do not merge* two DLC records with different LCCNs if neither is
>    ELvl "J", report these to AskQC. Otherwise, add the LCCN from the ELvl "J"
>    record in a subfield $z to the 010 field of the retained record.
>
> 006 and 007
>
>    - Records may be considered duplicates for merge even with the absence
>    or presence of field 006 or 007. Compare fields 300, 500, and 533 to
>    justify a merge.
>    - Specific differences in the physical format of the item may justify
>    leaving the records separate.
>
> 020
>
>    - Make sure they match. But be aware that multiple ISBNs may apply to
>    the same item. A different 020 alone does not justify separate records. The
>    records could still be potential duplicates to be merged. Compare fields
>    245 through 5xx to justify a merge.
>
> 100
>
>    - Records may be considered duplicates for merge even with the
>    absence, presence, or difference in choice or form of the 1xx field.
>    However, be careful of reversed order of names (see AACR2 21.6C1 and RDA
>    6.27.1.3).
>
>    *Example:*
>    100 1  Rosenbaum, Michael, $d 1972-
>    24510 Working on the set of Smallville / $c by Michael Rosenbaum and
>    Tom Welling.
>    700 1  Welling, Tom, $d 1977-
>
>    DOES NOT MATCH
>
>    100 1  Welling, Tom, $d 1977-
>    24510 Working on the set of Smallville / $c by Tom Welling and Michael
>    Rosenbaum.
>    700 1  Rosenbaum, Michael, $d 1972-
>
>    - These records would *not* be considered candidates for merging
>    because we do not have the items in hand and therefore cannot be sure what
>    the title page of each item looks like.
>    - If an author changed his or her name it is okay to merge. Retain the
>    latest form of name.
>    - Always consult the authority file for the latest form of the name.
>
>
> 245
>
>    - Subfield $a (title proper) should match exactly. Subfield $n and
>    subfield $p are cataloger's interpretation - *use judgment.
>    - It is usually okay if one has subfield $b and the other does not
>    (placement of subfield $b is arbitrary).
>    - Subfield $c should have same author.
>    - Two records can be merged if there is a typo difference in the title
>    and it is * clearly* a typo as opposed to an alternate spelling (i.e.
>    color vs. colour).
>
> 250
>
>    - Should match exactly.
>    - You may merge if one says 1st edition and other says nothing.
>    However, do not merge if one says 2nd edition, or 3rd edition, etc.
>    and the other has no edition statement.
>    - Compare 245 through 5xx for other differences to justify a merge.
>
> 260 and 264 Subfield $a guidelines
>
>    - Records may be considered duplicates for merge even with the absence
>    or presence of the subfield $a.
>    - Always match 1st place of publication within the same country.
>
> *Examples:*
>
> New York ; $a Hamburg, Germany : $b Tokyopop MATCHES Los Angeles, Calif.
> ; $a Hamburg, Germany : $b Tokyopop  [First places of publication are
> within the same country]
>
> but
>
> Hamburg, Germany ; $a New York : $b Tokyopop  DOES NOT MATCH Los Angeles,
> Calif. ; $a Hamburg, Germany : $b Tokyopop  [First places of publication
> are in different countries]
> Subfield $b guidelines
>
>    - Publisher should be the same.
>    - Do not merge if the publisher's name changed.
>
> Subfield $c guidelines
>
>    - 1970, c1961 DOES NOT MATCH c1961
>    - [1854] DOES NOT MATCH [1860] – different decades
>    - [197-?] DOES NOT MATCH [19--?] – *use judgment
>    - [2012] DOES NOT MATCH [2015] – *use judgment
>    - [194-] MATCHES [1940-9] – within the same decade
>    - [2013] MATCHES [2014] – one year difference in brackets
>    - c2001 MATCHES [2000 or 2001]
>    - [1929] MATCHES [date of publication not identified] or [n.d.]
>    - [196-?] MATCHES [ date of publication not identified] or [n.d.]
>    - Printing dates are not considered dates of publication and are
>    ignored
>
> 300 Subfield $a guidelines
>
>    - 1 v. various pages MATCHES 60 p. in various pages
>    - unpaged MATCHES [any number of pages in brackets]
>    - 1 v. MATCHES [any number of pages in brackets]
>    - 1 v. DOES NOT MATCH 27 p. – *use judgment
>    - 1 v. (loose-leaf) DOES NOT MATCH 253 leaves – *use judgment
>    - 3 v. DOES NOT MATCH 3 v. in 1
>    - 473 p. DOES NOT MATCH 2 v. in 1 – *use judgment
>    - 473 p. MATCHES 2 v. in 1 [473] because gives number of pages
>    - unpaged DOES NOT MATCH a number of pages
>
> Subfield $b guidelines
>
>    - Merge if one has plates and the other does not
>    - Do *not* merge if number of plates is way off (i.e. $b 5 pages of
>    plates vs. $b 17 pages of plates)
>    - Absence or presence of illustrations does not justify a new record.
>    Records may be merged if one has illustrations and the other does not.
>    However, do not merge if one has colored illustrations and the other has
>    black and white illustrations.
>
> Subfield $c guidelines
>
>    - Size should not differ by more than 2 cm.
>
> Subfield $e guidelines
>
>    - Absence or presence of subfields indicating substantive accompanying
>    material may justify a new record. Records that represent a resource issued
>    without accompanying material and the same resource issued with substantive
>    accompanying material are no longer considered to be duplicates.
>    - The accompanying material may be cataloged separately or described
>    in a note. Compare fields 006 through 5xx to justify a merge.
>    - Do *not* merge those with a difference in subfield $e.
>
> 490
>
>    - Guidelines regarding series retention can be found in the Record
>    Merge Field Transfers document.
>    - Records may be considered duplicates for merge even with the absence
>    or presence of the 490 field.
>    - Examples of situations that may justify a merge, use judgment.
>       - Variation in form of series statement
>       - Variation in tracing decision or form (i.e., 490 vs. 490 with 830)
>       - Absence, presence, or difference in series statement of
>       responsibility
>       - Change of series among issues or parts of a serial or multipart
>       item. Do * not* merge if the item is issued in a different series.
>
> 501
>
>    - Do *not* merge if one has 501 and other does not, unless there are
>    7xx fields representing the works in 501.
>
>  Note: The issue of field 501 is currently under reconsideration.
> 533
>
>    - Do *not *merge if one has 533 and other does not, unless the records
>    represent electronic resources.
>    - Some older records have 533 information in a 500 field.
>    - Do *not *merge if the series differ.
>    - Make sure type, place, and agency of reproduction matches.
>
> 6xx
>
>    - Records may be considered duplicates for merge even with the
>    absence, presence, or difference in 6xx fields.
>
> 7xx
>
>    - Records may be considered duplicates for merge even with the
>    absence, presence, or difference in 7xx fields.
>
> *Use judgment: *More leeway is given if the 'delete' record is a
> batchloaded Vendor record. For a list of participating vendors to go:
> http://www.oclc.org/en/partnerships/material/participants.html
> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.oclc.org%2Fen%2Fpartnerships%2Fmaterial%2Fparticipants.html&data=02%7C01%7Cfrancis.lapka%40yale.edu%7Cf5df418ff5f146ffe0e908d67268e8c0%7Cdd8cbebb21394df8b4114e3e87abeb5c%7C0%7C0%7C636822192260526314&sdata=aJCG94HeYNXIUZGYGGENMECWEztp8z6diw7DaMFIe28%3D&reserved=0>.
> See table below.
> Exceptions
>
>
>
> …
>
> *Rare Materials (pre-1801)*
>
> Items that are published pre-1801 are considered rare materials items.
>
> These items may be cataloged using various Rare Materials cataloging rules
> which will be coded in the 040 $e (i.e., dcrb, dcrmb); however, records may
> be considered duplicates regardless of the absence or presence of the 040
> $e. Determine the record to be retained based on the following guidelines:
>
>    - If one of the records is coded as Rare Materials in the 040 $e and
>    the potential duplicates are not, but it is evident from all fields
>    (including note fields) that they represent the same item – merge and
>    retain the record coded as Rare Materials in the 040 $e
>    - If the records are coded as the same Rare Materials cataloging rules
>    in the 040 $e, compare all records (including note fields) to determine
>    whether or not they are duplicates and if appropriate, merge retaining the
>    most complete record (based on content, *not* holdings)
>    - If the records are coded as different Rare Materials cataloging
>    rules in the 040 $e – *do not merge*
>    - If none of the records are coded as rare materials cataloging,
>    compare all records (including note fields) to determine whether or not
>    they are duplicates and if appropriate, merge retaining the most complete
>    record (based on content, *not* holdings)
>
> In all cases, be aware of fields that will not auto-transfer during the
> merge process and manually transfer, as appropriate – such as unique 510
> fields.
>
>
>
>
>

-- 
[image: University of Delaware]

Jennifer MacDonald MA, PhD, MSLIS

Associate Librarian and Coordinator, Special Collections Cataloging Unit

Cataloging Department

University of Delaware
(302) 831-1512
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/attachments/20190108/11ffea14/attachment-0001.html>