Print

Print


I too have wished for the ability of our tape loaded records to overlay and
upgrade low level records in OCLC, so that the enhancements we make on
records locally are not lost to the nation.  But I also  wonder whether
this is a feasible idea in practical terms.   Would this mean that every
time a record is overlaid by a new set of enhancements, the previous
enhancements are wiped out, or does it just mean adding more fields  every
time another library contributes its tape-loaded version of the record?
Would the OCLC archival record retain only the enhancements made by the
library to get its tape-loaded version in first, and then reject those of
the "latecomers"?  I'm not sure that any of these possibilities is very
efficient or helpful in the long run.  I'm also dubious about the ability
of an overlay program to identify and retain only the useful data in the
incoming record, and to reject the rest.

Pat Williams
Head, Monographic Original Cataloging
University of Chicago Library


At 10:56 AM 1/29/01 -0500, you wrote:
>At the November PoCo meeting OCLC announced that plans were in high
>gear for moving to a relational database management system for
>WorldCat.  As a result the PoCo asked that BIBCO and CONSER
>participants  brainstrom and develop a "wish list" to be sent both to
>OCLC and RLG.  At the recent ALA conference the BIBCO-At-Large meeting
>Jennifer Bowen led a "visioning exercise" designed to create the "wish
>list" that BIBCO participants would like to see utilities provide. The
>following list is given in order of priority, #1 being on top.
>
>1. Authority validation (Linked authorities)
>2. Record distribution, i.e., record sharing, between utilities
>3. Batch overlay, i.e., tape loading ability that will overlay lower
>level records
>4. Online SACO record contribution and ability to save SACO records
>in the utilities
>5. BFM (Bibliographic file maintenance)
>6. Numerical file sorting of Series numbering
>7. Import capabilities directly into the utility from remote
>databases
>8. Online classification record contribution
>
>During a discussion of these items at the PCC Participants Meeting
>later Sunday, others added
>
>1. Better functionality from the fixed field coding in 007/008:
>        a. codes should be searchable
>        b. codes should trigger display constants
>
>2. The ability to see all in process authority records in OCLC, as
>members can do in RLIN
>3. Ability of RLIN members to do CONSER work
>4. OCLC credits for BIBCO members who provide a classification number
>to records that did not contain a number in that system
>5. ISSN records available in the utility databases
>
>Full summaries of the BIBCO and CONSER meetings can be found on their
>respective websites.
>
>Time is growing short for formulation of a final wish list to present
>to OCLC. Feel free to present further thoughts for discussion on the
>matter to the list, or directly to me, at [log in to unmask]
>