Sherman,
The situation you describe is exactly the one that happened here. Our
authorities/database management librarian sent me a message that there
were two duplicate authority records, one that had a year and place in the
conference heading, the other that didn't. When I looked them up, I saw
the 667 note. This saved me from reporting these to Coop Cat, although it
raised the question that prompted me to write to this list.
This note is potentially useful primarily because deletes are not always
completed in Coop quickly after being reported. In defense of Coop staff,
they are swamped and short-staffed, and have to prioritize the work they
do just like the rest of us. In the absence of sufficient resources to
keep up, I wouldn't be opposed to allowing NACO libraries the option of
adding a note that a particular record has been reported for deletion, but
I think the text of such a note should be codified somewhat by including
it in appropriate NACO documentation.
Adam
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Adam L. Schiff
Principal Cataloger
University of Washington Libraries
Box 352900
Seattle, WA 98195-2900
(206) 543-8409
(206) 685-8782 fax
[log in to unmask]
http://faculty.washington.edu/~aschiff
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
On Thu, 11 Oct 2007, Sherman Clarke wrote:
> Adam,
> I haven't seen this either though I do report quite a few records for deletion (funneling for Art NACO as well as those from NYU). Having recently been in on an e-conversation with some serialists, it didn't surprise me to see that CU-S was probably the agent that added the 667. CONSER guidelines call for a 936 when you've reported a record to OCLC for conflation/deletion.
>
> If adding the 667 message hasn't been discussed for situations like this, it might very well be a good thing. I have some times had two different Art NACO libraries run across the same duplicate situation at about the same time. If the record to be deleted could be marked, it would inform the second library. Sometimes one of the libraries finding the duplication has updated the record to be kept with info from the record to be deleted.
>
> Sherman Clarke, NYU Libraries - [log in to unmask]
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Adam L. Schiff" <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Wednesday, October 10, 2007 6:21 pm
> Subject: [PCCLIST] 667 note on records reported for deletion
> To: [log in to unmask]
>
>
>> I found a 667 MESSAGE note in a name authority record that I've never
>> seen
>> before.
>>
>> In record n 2002012624:
>>
>> 667 MESSAGE. Record reported for deletion. See no 97060315
>>
>> I haven't seen anything telling us to put this kind of MESSAGE note
>> into
>> records that we are reporting for deletion. I checked the DCM Z1 667
>>
>> pages that talk about MESSAGE notes, and they don't provide
>> instructions
>> on this either. Is this a new practice that we should be following
>> to
>> alert others that an NAR is being cancelled?
>>
>> Adam
>>
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> Adam L. Schiff
>> Principal Cataloger
>> University of Washington Libraries
>> Box 352900
>> Seattle, WA 98195-2900
>> (206) 543-8409
>> (206) 685-8782 fax
>> [log in to unmask]
>> http://faculty.washington.edu/~aschiff
>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>
>
|