I'd be happy to have my tax money that is currently going to bomb Iraq and pay Blackwater go instead to Coop/CPSO so they could afford another staff member who would do afm all day long. Or maybe we could even afford two new staff members.
Your explanation of why we probably don't want to do the 667 in NARs seems to be spot on. For Art NACO and NYU deletes, I never send you guys the note until the updated keeper record has been redistributed, and I've quit doing anything in the 010.
[log in to unmask]
----- Original Message -----
From: "Adam L. Schiff" <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Thursday, October 11, 2007 4:15 pm
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] 667 note on records reported for deletion
To: [log in to unmask]
> The situation you describe is exactly the one that happened here.
> authorities/database management librarian sent me a message that
> 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
> 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
> completed in Coop quickly after being reported. In defense of Coop
> they are swamped and short-staffed, and have to prioritize the work
> do just like the rest of us. In the absence of sufficient resources
> keep up, I wouldn't be opposed to allowing NACO libraries the option
> 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
> it in appropriate NACO documentation.
> 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 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
> >> 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
> >> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~