Personally, I can see no reason for wanting to upgrade the provisional
LC record when there's already another seemingly adequate NACO record
with the 1XX that's (correctly) your preferred form. Simply transfer
anything you need from the LC record to nb2008005617 and submit the
former to LC for deletion and any BFM required. Fait accompli, et al.
(Your suggestion "2" seems unnecessarily complicated to me - there's no
reason why you can't "complete" the editing of nb2008005617 and
contribute it all in one go.)
However, if there's some reason for wanting to retain the LC record -
and I've struggled but ultimately failed to come up with one - then I would
(a) upgrade the LC record accordingly and save to a local file
(b) ask LC to delete nb2008005617 and when that's done...
(c) ... contribute your upgraded version of the LC record (there won't
be any duplication to worry about at that stage). Not ideal, but fit for
Head, Collection Development and Description
Cambridge University Library
West Road, Cambridge CB3 9DR, England
email: [log in to unmask] fax: +44 (0)1223 333160
phone: +44 (0)1223 333069 (with voicemail) or
phone: +44 (0)1223 333000 (ask for pager 036)
Rebecca Uhl said - in whole or part - on 21/12/2011 16:10:
> We discovered a "duplicate" authority record and are trying to replace it, but are unable to do so due to OCLC validation, which I don't remember seeing in the past. Has anyone else has run across it and, if so, how did you resolve the problem?
> The specific headings involved are n 96108703 (ARN04203229) and nb2008005617 (ARN07696441). The former is a provisional LC record, Kobenhavns universitet. Faculty of Theology, no references; the latter a UK record with the Danish form of name, Kobenhavns universitet. Teologiske Fakultet, but no English references. We are trying to replace the LC record, the first one in the system, to reflect the Danish form of name with the English reference, so we can report the UK record as a duplicate for deletion. However, we keep getting an error message, "This main entry exists in another authority record: LCCN=oca07696441 ARN=nb2008005617," which we already know and are trying to correct! (Trying to go the other way had the same result, but in reverse.)
> Has this happened to anyone else? The way I see it, we have 3 options, none of which seem proper.
> 1) Change the UK record, perhaps introducing a typo into the 110, so we can fix the LC record, then report the duplicate UK record for deletion.
> 2) Partly change the UK record, but leave off the reference and expect LC to finish the corrections and delete the provisional record.
> 3) Report the duplicate and expect LC to do everything.
> I don't like any of the options, but don't know what else to do, given the issues with OCLC validation. Any suggestions?
> Becky Uhl
> Science Cataloger/Authority Control Coordinator
> Arizona State University Libraries
> (480) 965-9802
> [log in to unmask]