Posted on behalf of Jay Weitz:
Dear Adam,
Please forgive my having taken so long to respond to your question. I have
been trying to round up as accurate an answer as I could provide. My thanks
to all of my OCLC colleagues who have contributed to this response.
Currently, all replace transactions appear in your archive files. As I
understand it, archive files have always been intended to record every
transaction of an individual library. One major purpose of this design was
to allow as complete a reconstruction as possible of a catalog (for
instance, at the time of conversion to a new local system or in case of
emergency). In this respect, the archive files have well served both OCLC
and all contributors to WorldCat for decades.
OCLC has long discouraged (in the Enhance Training Outline, especially) the
replacement of records not held by the institution. (There have been
several discussion to that effect on these lists in recent years.) This
expanded use of field 936 would increase the number of such replaces and so
increase any problems those institutions might encounter with such
transactions in their archive files. Remember that this use of the 936 is
an optional choice, one that was requested by catalogers who are working
with integrating resources and who are familiar with the longstanding
similar use of 936 within CONSER. Outside of the context of CONSER, this
use of 936 is entirely optional. Your own local system's ability to deal
with these sorts of replace transactions should help inform your own policy
decision about using the 936 in this manner.
All of that being said, OCLC is looking into the possibility of giving users
options on what types of archived records are used for specific services
such as Electronic MARC Subscription. With all of the other development
going on here at OCLC, however, there are no current plans to make such
changes to these services, although it is a future possibility. Depending
upon your individual work flows and your local system needs, an alternative
to MARC Subscription could be the use of export, which allows you to choose
which transactions you want to get. Although this is hardly a comprehensive
answer, I hope it helps at least a little.
Jay Weitz
Consulting Database Specialist
OCLC Online Computer Library Center
MC 745
6565 Frantz Road
Dublin, Ohio 43017-3395
Phone: 614-764-6156
Fax: 614-718-7195
E-mail: [log in to unmask]
WWW: <http://www.oclc.org>
<http://www.CMColumbus.org/>
<http://www.columbusalive.com>
-----Original Message-----
From: Adam Schiff [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Wednesday, June 16, 2004 4:14 PM
To: OCLC Enhance Libraries
Cc: [log in to unmask]; [log in to unmask]
Subject: [pcc-ircat] Re: [Enhance] "Record Reported as a Duplicate" Note
in Field 936
If we add a 936 field to a record that we don't have holdings on, will we
still receive a copy of that record in our ftp load of records? If so, we
would have to then delete the record from our local system the next day.
It would be desirable for OCLC not to include these kinds of records (in
fact, we wish no lock/replace records would be sent to us via ftp, only
those we actually update) as transactions that result in our being sent a
copy of the record.
**************************************
* 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] *
**************************************
On Wed, 16 Jun 2004, Weitz,Jay wrote:
> Several weeks ago, the question was raised on this discussion list of the
> appropriateness of PCC and Enhance participants using field 936 for
"Record
> Reported for Deletion" notes, as has long been common practice within
> CONSER. After discussions among OCLC staff, it has been decided to allow
> the use of a similar practice beyond the realm of serials.
> When reporting a set of duplicate records to OCLC, PCC and Enhance
> participants may add field 936 to record(s) reported for merging. Add
this
> duplicate record information as the first subfield $a.
> 936 Record Reported as a Duplicate -- Use #XXX
> We request, however, that this be used prudently within the context of PCC
> and/or Enhance work. As a longer-term aspect of this decision, we will
make
> the addition of field 936 to bibliographic records non-credit-generating
> when we next make changes to this component of the OCLC system.
>
> Jay Weitz
> Consulting Database Specialist
> OCLC Online Computer Library Center
> MC 745
> 6565 Frantz Road
> Dublin, Ohio 43017-3395
>
> Phone: 614-764-6156
> Fax: 614-718-7195
> E-mail: [log in to unmask]
> WWW: <http://www.oclc.org>
> <http://www.CMColumbus.org/>
> <http://www.columbusalive.com>
>
|