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  September 1998

PCCLIST September 1998

Subject:

Re: LC overlay error??

From:

"Anita L. Cristan" <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Anita L. Cristan

Date:

Thu, 24 Sep 1998 13:34:25 -0400

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (139 lines)

Below is LC's response to Adam Schiff's original message and Robert
Bremer's response on behalf of OCLC:


On Thu, 3 Sep 1998, Bremer,Robert wrote:

> Adam Schiff wrote:
>
> > We can't export OCLC #39477127 because the Elvl is set to value E.
> > Apparently, from looking at this record in the LC database, it was
> > originally a PCC record from the University of Chicago, which LC copy
> > cataloged.  Can someone at OCLC explain what the error is that caused
> > the
> > Elvl to get changed to E?  I'm wondering if this is a unique case or
> > whether there are going to more of these we find.
> >
> <snip>
>
> My response:
>
> <snip>
>
> Record #39477127 appeared on our E-level listings as containing
> incorrect data in field 040.  The batchload software used to process
> records received from the Library of Congress looks for a valid USMARC
> library (NUC) symbol in 040 subfield $c.  Because of the OCLC system
> design, that symbol must match up to a corresponding OCLC symbol.  Field
> 040 subfield $a is left as is.  In this particular case, the record
> received from LC did not contain the recognizable NUC symbol "ICU" for
> University of Chicago in 040 subfield $c, but instead contained the OCLC
> symbol "CGU" which the batchload software could not match up against our
> tables of NUC symbols.  Consequently, the 040 subfield $c was changed to
> a default "DLC" symbol.  We periodically sent these error reports back
> to the Library of Congress so that they can change and redistribute
> their records as needed.
>
> Robert Bremer
> [log in to unmask]


LC Perspective on Symbols Used in 040 Fields

     At the time LC began to import records from OCLC in an offline mode,
the OCLC internal forms of the symbols used in field 040 (Cataloging
source) were converted to the USMARC Code List Symbols for Organizations
(UCLO) form before the records were transmitted to LC.  (The UCLO form was
formerly Symbols of American Libraries and originally NUC symbols.)  When
LC began importing records from OCLC through the Z39.50 protocol, the
symbols used in the 040 field were not converted to the UCLO form.  LC met
with OCLC staff and were informed that it was not possible to convert the
symbols when import was executed in an online mode.

     LC determined that use of already existing records for copy
cataloging was a prevailing concern and made the decision to continue to
import records from OCLC even though the symbols in the 040 field would
not be converted to the UCLO form.  LC made the further decision not to
require LC staff to provide the UCLO form at the time of cataloging,
although staff are encouraged to change the symbols to that form if it
readily known.  Concomitant with this decision, LC decided not to change
the symbols when they are reported as errors to LC.  At the time the
decision was made to use the OCLC form of symbols imported in the online
mode, OCLC did not indicate the consequences of this procedure on their
batchload software.

     Sally McCallum, Chief of LC's Network Development and MARC Standards
Office, provided the following statement to the USMARC electronic mail
list on June 5, 1997:

     "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."

Kay Guiles
Cataloging Policy and Support Office
>
posted by:

Ana Cristan
Acting Team Leader/BIBCO Coordinator
Cooperative Cataloging
Regional and Cooperative Division
Library of Congress, LM537
Washington, DC 20540-4382
(202) 707-7921 (fax): (202) 707-2824
e-mail: [log in to unmask]

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

June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
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