LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for PCCLIST Archives


PCCLIST Archives

PCCLIST Archives


PCCLIST@LISTSERV.LOC.GOV


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

PCCLIST Home

PCCLIST Home

PCCLIST  June 2010

PCCLIST June 2010

Subject:

Local data in master recs WAS: a NACO question

From:

"D. Brooking" <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Program for Cooperative Cataloging <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Mon, 7 Jun 2010 13:18:56 -0700

Content-Type:

TEXT/PLAIN

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

TEXT/PLAIN (190 lines)

It could also turn out that the master record is not the ideal place for 
every kind of local data. If a copy of a book has been signed by George 
Washington, that might go better into a local holdings record, rather than 
the bib.

Right now, only the data in the bib is searchable in WorldCat. Somehow the 
model of how data is stored, searched and displayed needs to be changed, 
not only for network-level sharing of records, but for RDA as well. A lot 
is changing.

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! 
Catalogers never sleep (so to speak), records keep getting created, 
maintenance never ends.... It would be nice to have more clarity about 
where we are going, so we don't do harm in the meantime.



************
Diana Brooking             (206) 685-0389
Cataloging Librarian       (206) 685-8782 fax
Suzzallo Library           [log in to unmask]
University of Washington
Box 352900
Seattle WA  98195-2900

On Mon, 7 Jun 2010, Adam L. Schiff wrote:

> Bob,
>
> What I think OCLC needs to do is develop a way so that when a user at 
> University of Washington looks at WorldCat Local, they search our local data 
> and have it displayed to them, but not necessarily other libraries' local 
> data.
>
> For a user who doesn't care where the books signed by George Washington are, 
> being able to pull up all of the records in OCLC that have a copy signed by 
> Washington could also be useful.  It's just that the system needs to be able 
> to tell the user which libraries have those copies.  And the user needs to be 
> able to specify that she only wants copies held at BYU that fit her search. 
> A tall order perhaps, but such a system is probably developable.
>
> 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
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> On Mon, 7 Jun 2010, Robert Maxwell wrote:
>
>> I think the problem of WorldCat Local is a problem of OCLC's own making and 
>> the solution to put all the local information on the master record for the 
>> benefit of those who use OCLC Local isn't going to work in the long run. 
>> Supposing my Library chose to go with OCLC local, I would certainly want to 
>> have my own local information on the master record if that was all my users 
>> could see, but I wouldn't want to show my users the University of 
>> Washington's or Columbia's local information. That would just introduce 
>> confusion to our own users. So if we all go to WorldCat local are we going 
>> to wind up with a situation where dozens or more libraries all put their 
>> local information in the master records and then we're all supposed to put 
>> up with it and make our own users view local information from other 
>> libraries?
>> 
>> As for additional access points never hurting anyone, if I'm looking for 
>> the books signed by George Washington in the my own library and, since my 
>> library forces me to view my catalog through OCLC Local, I find a heading 
>> "Washington, George, signer" on the master record because Columbia's copy 
>> has a book signed by George Washington, that *does* hurt me. If OCLC 
>> contains the local headings for George Washington signing books for a dozen 
>> libraries, including my own, my users will need to sort through which ones 
>> are which before coming up with the ones that actually belong to the BYU 
>> Library.
>> 
>> I'm extremely dubious about the proposition that we should be leaving local 
>> information in master records, much less adding it.
>> 
>> Bob
>> 
>> Robert L. Maxwell
>> Special Collections and Ancient Languages Catalog Librarian
>> Genre/Form Authorities Librarian
>> 6728 Harold B. Lee Library
>> Brigham Young University
>> Provo, UT 84602
>> (801)422-5568
>> 
>> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf 
>> Of Adam L. Schiff
>> Sent: Monday, June 07, 2010 12:28 PM
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: Re: a NACO question
>> 
>> As Kate pointed out, removing local headings from the OCLC master record,
>> when the master record IS the local catalog record for those of us who use
>> WorldCat Local as our catalog (and that would include my institution),
>> would adversely affect our users.  With the move toward network level
>> cataloging, we need to reconsider carefully what we do to master records
>> and what should and should not be deleted from them.  Fields marked with a
>> subfield $5 should probably be left alone.  Additional access points on a
>> record never hurt anyone.  OCLC WorldCat probably does however need to
>> develop a better way of displaying local data in records. Imagine a record
>> with dozens of local fields from different libraries.  There is always
>> going to be a need for some local data that other libraries would not need
>> or choose to include in their record.  When we are all sharing the same
>> record in one shared catalog we are going to have to figure out how to let
>> everyone have what they need while keeping exceptions to standard
>> practices to a minimum.
>> 
>> I'm of two minds about whether a PCC record with local access points needs
>> to have those access points under authority control.  In an ideal world,
>> of course.  But I think I could live with all of the access points that
>> apply to all copies of a resource being under authority control while
>> access points that are only applicable to a non-PCC library's copy not
>> needing an authority record.
>> 
>> 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
>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>> 
>> On Mon, 7 Jun 2010, Ted P Gemberling wrote:
>> 
>>> Amy,
>>> I sometimes put $5 in original records when I'm not sure something is 
>>> purely local. I figure a cataloger with another copy might be interested 
>>> in it, as you say. But if she recognizes it as being non-local when she 
>>> sees the record, I'd have no objection to her removing the $5 code from 
>>> the master record.
>>> 
>>> And I suppose if she recognizes it as being purely local, I'd have no 
>>> objection to her removing the field altogether, as long as she is mindful 
>>> of the possible need another library might have for such items.
>>> 
>>> When the only copy you have for reference is your own, it's hard to know 
>>> sometimes whether something is unique to it. Maybe that's particularly 
>>> true for rare book elements like cancel leaves.
>>> 
>>> Ted Gemberling
>>> UAB Lister Hill Library
>>> (205)934-2461
>>> 
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On 
>>> Behalf Of Amy Turner
>>> Sent: Monday, June 07, 2010 12:02 PM
>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>> Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] a NACO question
>>> 
>>> My reading of the standards is that the $5 indicates that the heading only 
>>> applies to certain copies of the work, not that it is "local" in 
>>> construction.  OCLC distinguishes between completely local notes and 
>>> headings, which should not be entered on master records and can be 
>>> deleted, and those that "are of interest beyond the inputting library" and 
>>> are identified by $5 (cf. the section on local notes in 
>>> http://www.oclc.org/bibformats/en/onlinecataloging/default.shtm)
>>> 
>>> So, I think that the best thing to do when upgrading a record containing a 
>>> $5 that one does not wish to support with an authority record is not to 
>>> make it a PCC record.
>>> 
>>> On the more general question of the size of the pool of PCC records, are 
>>> others discouraged from making PCC records because present OCLC policy 
>>> locks them from upgrades by non-PCC libraries (although LC records CAN be 
>>> upgraded?).  I would like for the "Expert Community Experiment" to be 
>>> expanded so that any library could correct or enhance a PCC record.  Or, 
>>> if we really want to retain a special status for national-level records, 
>>> one would think LC records would be included in that group.
>>> 
>> 
>

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
January 2002
December 2001
November 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
July 2001
June 2001
May 2001
April 2001
March 2001
February 2001
January 2001
December 2000
November 2000
October 2000
September 2000
August 2000
July 2000
June 2000
May 2000
April 2000
March 2000
February 2000
January 2000
December 1999
November 1999
October 1999
September 1999
August 1999
July 1999
June 1999
May 1999
April 1999
March 1999
February 1999
January 1999
December 1998
November 1998
October 1998
September 1998
August 1998
July 1998
June 1998
May 1998
April 1998
March 1998
February 1998
January 1998
December 1997
November 1997
October 1997

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.LOC.GOV

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager