The Network Development and MARC Standards Office has great
sympathy with all the comments on the 040 field. We would prefer
that all folks who use the format use it according to
specification, and have tried to come as close to that ideal as
possible ourselves -- although LC is not perfect either. The
reason for following the specifications are obvious -- it is the
key to efficient interchange of records. OCLC, RLIN and others
also have a commitment to that ideal but have a few more
differences largely left over from the distant past. But very few
differences, taking the whole record into account. They have
resource problems like the rest of us and determine partly with
their customers what they spend the resources on. If all of us
gave them a high priority to following the letter of the format all
the way, they probably would do that. For most distribution from
OCLC to LC, OCLC uses a special batch exit program that gives us
pretty clean USMARC with the correct symbols in the 040 -- but it
is available to us only for batch files.
LC is trying to make its operations more efficient as we meet the
funds crunch. We have the opportunity to have our catalogers carry
out a Z39.50 search from our input system and then instantly
incorporate the record, finish the cataloging and send the item
along. OCLC's Z39.50 access was not initially designed to support
cataloging and it simply pulls the record as in the PRISM database
and does not carry out the conversions that we get with the batch
files. When we first began to work on this with OCLC the records
were coming from First Search and were missing other crucial items.
OCLC worked with us to solve all the problems except this one,
which they could not do in a limited time span. At that point we
realized that many of you see OCLC records all the time, with OCLC
symbols in the 040 and perhaps the small number of our records that
contain the same would not be too strange to see. We were unhappy
but realistic. We are not clear why OCLC allows OCLC symbols in
the record proper, as opposed to the holdings files but it is a
fact.
There is the possibility that OCLC could use the USMARC
Organization codes (formerly called the NUC symbols) in the fields
of their records, although as Rich Greene points out, in some
places this would cost a great deal of programming time at OCLC to
condition those processes that use those codes. Over the last few
years LC has worked with OCLC to get organization code assignments
made for all the OCLC cataloging libraries. I believe that we are
up to date on that and have good continuing cooperation on
assignments. As you know, OCLC publishes the corresponding USMARC
Organization codes in their code directory.
LC is not currently in a position to fix those codes ourselves,
although with a new system there might be potential. But it is
generally the responsibility of sending organizations to make
records conform to community developed and approved standards, and
if the original sender does not do this than many to whom the
original sender distributes have to take on duplicative work. But
we all have to agree that that is a priority.
As the systems become more global, this will only get worse. ISO
has just started to work on a "standard for library identifiers".
According to the draft that will have its first ballot in a few
months, it would allow the USMARC Organization codes to be used for
US libraries if a country code for "US" is added before each. This
may be useful ultimately.
********************************************************
Sally H. McCallum, Chief, Network Development and
MARC Standards Office, Library of Congress
Washington, DC 20540 USA
[log in to unmask] (Fax: 1-202-707 0115) (Voice: 1-202-707 5119)
********************************************************
|