As Diana and Adam from the U of Wash have described, there are unresolved issues with using WorldCatLocal and the creation/maintenance of bib records in WorldCat. As a member of a consortium that uses WorldCat as the consortial catalog (Summit), I can add to that.
Right now, if I alter (e.g. upgrade or enhance) a record in our local catalog, I end up in something of a dilemma. The changes I make locally do not pass through to the union catalog, which is WorldCat-based. So when I dutifully try to alter records in WorldCat, I sometimes find records I am prevented from altering (which I already changed locally), and sometimes find many more that need the same added access - - for example new subject headings. If they represent items held by consortial members, am I obliged to alter them? Wouldn't that be best for our local patrons when they go the union catalog? That is the model being promoted for future ongoing enhancements to records.
(And of course the reverse flow is an issue, too. If Adam or Diana or others enhance a record on WorldCat that our holdings are attached to, that enhancement doesn't flow through to our local catalog.)
This sort of double bind and double work situation remains another largely unresolved issue for me. As Diana wrote:
> We are in a really awkward transition stage, where the future model is not
> finalized, but in the meantime we have to do something with our data!
And in an environment where the iterative process of data enhancement is being promoted as the answer, it is especially important that we get a handle on this fairly soon. That WorldCatLocal not only doesn't use the IRs, but that OCLC (for now) has no interest in supporting that, is specifically discouraging. How's this all going to fit together? As PCC contributors, the health of those programs will be influenced by the software support and policies from OCLC.
Head of Cataloging
Central Washington University Brooks Library
400 E. University Way
Ellensburg, WA 98926-7548
[log in to unmask]