Hello,
With digital preservation project information in mind, we will be
re-reviewing the list of transferable fields and making a number of
changes. Many of the fields typically used in preservation project
cataloging already transfer and would continue to do so. In the example
you provided, field 538 already transfers in merges whether subfield $5
is present or not. However, there are other fields like 533 that would
need to be added to that transfer list.
It will become increasingly important for fields containing digital
preservation project information to be flagged with $5 since many of
these same fields are specifically listed in the provider neutral
guidelines as not included in records. Other catalogers may not
recognize that preservation field without $5 and may remove them
inappropriately. OCLC will be able to take advantage of that $5 coding
in the future to more readily preserve the information, and libraries
will be able to identify and *locally* remove the information when it is
not needed in their copy cataloging workflow.
Subfield $5 was not available for some of these fields in the past, and
there were no specific instructions concerning its use. We will no
doubt run across sets of digital preservation project records where we
may be able to help by adding subfield $5 to certain fields like 533.
Like other records for online monographic resources up to now, existing
records for digital preservation monographs were created as separate
records. They would be unaffected by initial efforts to neutralize
records in the database as that will occur on a provider-by-provider or
set-by-set basis targeting commercially available sets. Records with
533 fields intact, as would be the case for most digital preservation
records, would not be matched in the global deduping process initially
because the publisher in 533 $c is different from the 260 $b in the
titles from NetLibrary, ebrary, etc., that end up being combined.
Eventually, that situation will change so that digital preservation
records and other provider neutral records would be combined
transferring all the necessary fields.
That may be completely calm fears on the part of staff involved in
digital preservation projects, but OCLC staff are aware of the issues
and will attempt to work around them to accommodate preservation project
information.
Robert Bremer
[log in to unmask]
-----Original Message-----
From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
Behalf Of Kate Harcourt
Sent: Thursday, August 13, 2009 12:50 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Neutralization of Provider-Specific Records
hi Robert
Would you be able to comment on how local fields will be protected in
the merge? Is it based only on the presence of a $5 or are there other
safeguards in place? I've heard concerns from the rarebook,
preservation and digital projects communities that their data may be
lost as part of the record clean-up.
For example, will these fields be protected? They do not have $5.
533 Electronic reproduction. $b New York, N.Y. : $c Columbia University
Libraries, $d 2008. $n JPEG use copy available via the World Wide Web.
$n Master copy stored locally on [3] DVDs#: ldpd_5767556_000 01,02,03
538 Benchmark for Faithful Digital Reproductions of Monographs and
Serials. Version 1. December 2002 $i Digital version conforms to: $u
http://www.diglib.org/standards/bmarkfin.htm
And a plea to PCC libraries doing manual merges. Please do not delete
data that may be necessary for preservation and digital project
management.
Thanks
Kate
|