Since Amy's message and my response were sent to PCC, I thought maybe I
should send this one I mentioned to PCC, too. My apologies for
cross-posting.
Ted Gemberling
UAB Lister Hill Library
(205)934-2461
-----Original Message-----
From: AUTOCAT [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Ted P
Gemberling
Sent: Monday, May 12, 2008 12:00 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [ACAT] Horrible record
Here's another idea that takes a different approach. My apologies if
it's been proposed before and didn't work. I call it a "competitive
record" approach.
If a cataloger finds a bad full-level record, as Wayne did, he'd have
the right to enter another record with a different classification and
subject headings, and maybe other changes as needed. (But I suppose it
would be important that the 245-300 transcription be the same.) There
would also be a field identifying the record he has redone. OCLC would
have a set period when the two (or multiple) records could coexist.
Let me explain what suggested this idea to me. Like Wayne, I entered a
second record for that reason about 5 years ago. I wanted to offer an
alternative to a PCC record that completely misconstrued the subject of
a book. And apparently, there were quite a few catalogers who had the
same problem with that record, because when mine showed up, quite a
number used it within the first few weeks it existed. But then someone
added a very extensive 505 to the PCC record, and I believe at that
point, people stopped using mine. Within several months, someone had
reported mine as a dup, and it was deleted.
Now, I believe my record did some good. The libraries that used it got a
more accurate classification and subject headings. But I suppose I can't
blame OCLC for deleting it. My proposal would be to allow multiple
records to compete for a little longer, maybe a year. During that time,
people would have the opportunity to add things like 505's to them.
OCLC's system would monitor whether one or more of the competing records
was no longer being used, and after a certain period of time, the unused
one would be deleted and its number put on the other in an 019, as at
present. But if they both continued to be used, they would continue to
coexist.
I realize this is a potential burden on OCLC, given the number of dups
that would be tolerated. But the database already contains lots of dups
that have less reason to exist than the ones I'm proposing. There could
be a more aggressive program to delete useless dups. And it would
provide an opportunity for catalogers to do better work. Not just
catalogers at the favored PCC institutions, who are apparently under
pressure to do better work than they can do.
Ted Gemberling
UAB Lister Hill Library
(205)934-2461
|