Good morning,
In the past, we have made lots of local edits outside of OCLC, especially with our music cataloging. Now we are moving to Alma and looking at getting updates of records from OCLC and of doing all of our copy cataloging work directly in OCLC. I'm rather alarmed at the idea of losing all of our past enhancements, and I definitely understand that all cataloging records are not created equal!
But I think that Amy wasn't expounding a one record fits all even if the record is junk. I'm sure she was envisioning a database of beautiful records created with all of the expertise available. It certainly is a lovely vision! :-)
Jenifer
Jenifer K. Marquardt
Asst. Head of Cataloging & Authorities Librarian
University of Georgia
Athens, GA 30602-1641
________________________________________
From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [[log in to unmask]] on behalf of Phyllis Jones [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Tuesday, December 20, 2016 11:24 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] Authority updates and BFM
I would like to echo Christopher Thomas's comment, this time from a music library perspective. We live in an era where "good enough" is often the standard to which we are expected to work -- and I certainly understand that many of us are laboring under straitened circumstances in terms of staff resources -- but I for one am on the side of resisting whenever possible the pull toward a downwardly-mobile catalog. The single authority file with which most of us work remains a more or less "artisanal" province, accounting for its general reliability. Unfortunately the same can't be said for most shared catalogs, which bring together the excellent, the good enough, and the just plain bad. Local control is indeed a necessity for specialized collections (law, music, etc.) and could be considered a plus in many other libraries as well.
-Phyllis Jones
On Tue, Dec 20, 2016 at 10:39 AM, Christopher Thomas <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
This “one size fits all” mentality doesn’t work well for special libraries. In a law library, we frequently deal with cooperative cataloging copy created by people who do not understand legal literature. We won’t just accept whatever junk comes down the pike, and we need to have control over our own data.
Christopher Thomas, M.L.S.| Electronic Resources and Metadata Librarian
(949) 824-7681<tel:(949)%20824-7681> | fax (949) 824-6700<tel:(949)%20824-6700> | [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
Law Library · University of California · Irvine
www.law.uci.edu/library<http://www.law.uci.edu/library>
From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>] On Behalf Of Amy Turner
Sent: Tuesday, December 20, 2016 6:59 AM
To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] Authority updates and BFM
Wouldn’t it be great if there was just one cooperatively maintained bibliographic file, just as there is one cooperatively maintained authority file, and BFM done for one library (with a snazzy automated system) would be done for all?
Peace on Earth, good will to men,
Amy
From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of McDonald, Stephen
Sent: Tuesday, December 20, 2016 9:50 AM
To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] Authority updates and BFM
Ack—my apologies. It was not Mary Jane that actually asked the question. It was Charles.
Steve McDonald
Cataloging and Metadata Librarian
[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of McDonald, Stephen
Sent: Tuesday, December 20, 2016 9:47 AM
To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] Authority updates and BFM
It is a fair question, Mary Jane. For you and for many libraries, the file maintenance is not a burden. Some systems would handle it entirely in the background with no intervention by staff. However, there are libraries where file maintenance is a much bigger deal. For some libraries, this change would have to be done by hand.
In general, a single change is not much work for one library. But we have to remember that every AAP change we make incurs file maintenance for tens of thousands of libraries. So we have to strike a balance between creating the best records and creating unnecessary work.
Ultimately, the decision on where to set the dividing line between necessary and unnecessary changes is somewhat arbitrary. To build consistency and make the decision easy, PCC has established policy. They could have decided to make the dividing line elsewhere; indeed, under old policy, even adding death dates to existing birth dates was often considered excessive file maintenance. The policy may change again in the future, and under a linked data scheme it may be unnecessary to construct AAPs at all. But for now, the policy is that we should not add birth dates to an established heading unless it is also necessary to make another change to the heading.
Steve McDonald
Cataloging and Metadata Librarian
[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Cuneo, Mary Jane
Sent: Monday, December 19, 2016 7:52 PM
To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] Authority updates and BFM
I’ll get in trouble for saying this, but so what? The file maintenance is not an unbearable burden.
Hi Charles,
Not unbearable, but a great pain in the rear, & time that could be spent doing more useful things. (From someone who, with colleagues, gets a report every month and slogs through it).
Mary Jane Cuneo
Senior Serials Cataloger & NACO coordinator
Harvard Library
From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Herrold, Charles
Sent: Monday, December 19, 2016 11:47 AM
To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Authority updates and BFM
I’ll get in trouble for saying this, but so what? The file maintenance is not an unbearable burden.
However, before anyone goes off the rails, I will also say that John is right, of course, as the name is unique and doesn’t need dates. The only serious objection I have is that, incredibly, LC provided no justification in the record for the death date:
010 n 84216417
040 DLC ǂb eng ǂe rda ǂc DLC ǂd DLC
046 ǂf 1917-02-06 ǂg 2016-12-18
1001 Gabor, Zsa Zsa, ǂd 1917-2016
370 Budapest (Hungary) ǂb Los Angeles (Calif.) ǂ2 naf
374 Actors ǂa Socialites ǂ2 lcsh
375 female
4001 Gábor, Sári, ǂd 1917-2016
4001 Gábor, Zsa Zsa ǂw nne
670 Such devoted sisters, 1985: ǂb CIP galley (Zsa Zsa Gábor)
670 Filmgoers companion, 1977 ǂb (Zsa Zsa Gábor; b. 1919 [sic])
670 LC data base, 9/10/84 ǂb (hdg.: Gábor, Zsa Zsa)
670 IMDb, May 9, 2008 ǂb (Zsa Zsa Gabor; b. Feb. 6, 1917, Budapest, Austria-Hungary; birth name: Sári Gábor; unclear as to Zsa Zsa's birth date)
Maybe the LC cataloger should just add that essential information and remove the dates from the access points.
Chuck Herrold
Carnegie Library of Pittsburgh
From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of John Hostage
Sent: Monday, December 19, 2016 11:32 AM
To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
Subject: [PCCLIST] Authority updates and BFM
Zsa Zsa Gabor was laid to rest in the authority file last night. The access point that previously had no dates now has birth and death dates. Why?
------------------------------------------
John Hostage
Senior Continuing Resources Cataloger
Harvard Library--Information and Technical Services
Langdell Hall 194
Harvard Law School Library
Cambridge, MA 02138
[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
+(1)(617) 495-3974<tel:(617)%20495-3974> (voice)
+(1)(617) 496-4409<tel:(617)%20496-4409> (fax)
ISNI 0000 0000 4028 0917
--
Phyllis J. Jones
Senior Recordings Cataloger
Conservatory Library
Oberlin College
Oberlin, OH 44074
Phone: 440/775-5137
Email:[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
|