[DCRM-L] OCLC Member Merge and rare materials
Joshua Hutchinson
jchutchi at uci.edu
Tue Jan 8 11:18:25 MST 2019
Hi all,
Here at UC Irvine we're nearly finished with training in the member merge cohort 3 (or 2?).
The two of us who are undergoing the training were initially surprised that we were allowed to merge early/rare/etc materials, but as we got more comfortable with what we're doing, I think we both recognize the value of it.
Last week, for instance, we merged a couple of records for some 16th century books. I have no doubt that the merging was proper (the institution that initially created the records we merged had removed their holdings and added them to the other record, leaving records with no holdings) and so I think it is important that member merge participants be allowed to merge these sorts of records.
However, I think it would probably be useful for further guidance to exist, especially for participants who don't have (much) rare material cataloging training, and thus don't really know what to look for in terms of the 'minor' differences that make 2 records valid for early materials.
Regards,
Josh
Cataloging & Metadata Services Department (Monographs)
UCI Libraries
University of California, Irvine
Irvine CA 92623-9557
Science Library Room 327 - (949) 824-8938
jchutchi at uci.edu
-----Original Message-----
From: DCRM-L <dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu> On Behalf Of dcrm-l-request at lib.byu.edu
Sent: Tuesday, January 8, 2019 9:09 AM
To: dcrm-l at lib.byu.edu
Subject: DCRM-L Digest, Vol 155, Issue 7
Send DCRM-L mailing list submissions to
dcrm-l at lib.byu.edu
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://listserver.lib.byu.edu/mailman/listinfo/dcrm-l
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
dcrm-l-request at lib.byu.edu
You can reach the person managing the list at
dcrm-l-owner at lib.byu.edu
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of DCRM-L digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Re: OCLC Member Merge and rare materials (Jennifer MacDonald)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2019 12:09:12 -0500
From: Jennifer MacDonald <jsmacdon at udel.edu>
To: "DCRM Users' Group" <dcrm-l at lib.byu.edu>
Subject: Re: [DCRM-L] OCLC Member Merge and rare materials
Message-ID:
<CAHi4Ji9YTHU+zGwrJd+HaGuwnJsWmV=bKhvhWhL_9kU35gOwHQ at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
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/Guideline
> s_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_fo
> r_merging_duplicate_books_records%253A_A_field-by-field_comparison&dat
> a=02%7C01%7Cfrancis.lapka%40yale.edu%7Cf5df418ff5f146ffe0e908d67268e8c
> 0%7Cdd8cbebb21394df8b4114e3e87abeb5c%7C0%7C0%7C636822192260506293&sdat
> a=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%4
> 0yale.edu%7Cf5df418ff5f146ffe0e908d67268e8c0%7Cdd8cbebb21394df8b4114e3
> e87abeb5c%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.html>
End of DCRM-L Digest, Vol 155, Issue 7
**************************************
More information about the DCRM-L
mailing list