 |
 |
Thanks Diane --Les On Wed, 22 Aug 2007, Boehr, Diane (NIH/NLM) [E] wrote: > It is fine to convert NLM records. > > Diane Boehr > Head, Cataloging Section > National Library of Medicine > 8600 Rockville Pike > Bethesda, MD 20894 > > 301-435-7059 > 301-402-1211 (fax) > [log in to unmask] > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Les Hawkins [mailto:[log in to unmask]] > Sent: Wednesday, August 22, 2007 1:56 PM > To: [log in to unmask] > Subject: Re: questions about authenticating integrating resource records > (fwd) > > Hi Shana, these are good questions. Robert Bremer and I had a discussion > about converting records a couple of weeks ago. I intended to send > something out to the list about it before I left on vacation for two > weeks but I didn't do that, sorry all! > > Here are some things from our conversation that relate to your > questions, but I'll let Robert add any needed clarifications. There are > also other comments of mine on things Robert and I didn't discuss. These > questions are important to BIBCO members working with these records, so > I'll copy the BIBCO list on this. > > 1. Since we announced the availability of converting and authenticating > PCC records for integrating resources, several CONSER and BIBCO > institutions have had various difficulties doing the conversion and > authentication of existing "interim" bib level m records in a one step > process. Other folks seemed not to have the difficulty at all or were > able to work around it in a multiple step process. There were several > variables related to the records themselves and perhaps the type of > authorization that allowed it to work for some and not for others in the > two programs. > > Robert made a good suggestion for simplifying at least the conversion > end of it. We thought it might be a good idea for OCLC to go ahead and > convert as many of thes (non-LC) interim bib level m records as soon as > possible. > > The "interim" practice records seem like good likely candidates for a > first automated swipe since they are easily identified. Then, > institutions would only need to deal with authenticating the records > with 042 pcc and 010. > > Of those monograph records for integrating resources created before the > interim practice, (this is just my opinion) there are probably some that > can be more readily identified for conversion by machine than others. > As for the question of CONSER authorizations being able to convert a > "pre-interim" monograph records coded pcc, I think that may not be > possible as our intention was to keep the BIBCO and the CONSER > authorizations as distinct as possible as far as books and serials go, > except for being able to mutually maintain records for integrating > resources. But we'll need to let Robert comment on this because I am not > sure. > > 2. I was assuming it was ok for us to convert NLM records, but lets let > NLM confirm this. > > 3. Changing records coded computer file: My first reaction is, I think > if they are clearly language material and were clearly mis-coded its ok > to change. But I think we ought to use some caution here, especially > with those records that are already coded 042 pcc, that might have been > coded or created by BIBCO members. I think that there might be some > cases where one cataloger codes a resources as primarily computer file > format, as an "online service" for example and another sees it as > primarily language material. I mention this because there is such an > example in the SCCTP workshop for integrating resouces, with the caution > that some folks might see it one way and others another. So I think its > worth discussing a bit more, what do others think? I think I'd prefer > converting or simply accepting how another cataloger has coded the > resource, especially if we know it might be viewed one way or another, > rather than creating a duplicate in another format. > > 4. I think if you are converting records, they should be counted as > existing records. > > --Les > > On Wed, 22 Aug 2007, Shana L. McDanold wrote: > > > Good morning! > > > > I need some clarification on a few issues that have come up that are > > related to the authenticating of integrating resource records (adding > > a LCCN and 042 pcc). I have a very talented intern that is working on > > > cataloging the plethora of databases we subscribe to. She has built > > up quite the file of records that need updating for one reason or > > another so the decision was made to go all out and authenticate the > > records, complete with the necessary NACO work (she's getting a lot of > > > experience out of this internship). > > > > *1.* What I understand is that if the interim practice was followed, > > we can change the fixed fields in the record to convert the monograph > > record to an integrating resource record (removing the serial 006 > > field in the process). My question is about those items that were > > cataloged before the interim practice existed. There are many > > integrating resource records out there that need updating (title > > variations, etc.) but were done as monographs, with no 006 for the > > serial aspects, but the 5xx notes make it clear that they are in fact > > for what are now considered integrating resources. Can we changes > > these monograph records to integrating resource records and > > authenticate them? Or do we need to create a "new" integrating > > resource record for them? I'd prefer to not create what I see as a > > duplicate record just because they were pre-interim practice. > > > > Ultimately, my concern is centered on changing the fixed field drop > > down from "Books" to "Continuing Resources," will the system let us > > (usually this is not allowed in OCLC unless you are creating a new > > record)? And will it let us if the 006 for serials isn't present? > > > > *2.* I know to exclude DLC records from the converting. Do we also > > need to exclude NLM records? > > > > *3.* Related to number one, what do we do with those items that were > > done as "Computer Files" originally (due to old rules)? Can we > > convert them to "Continuing Resources" or do we have to create a new > record? > > Again, these are resources that are clearly text-based integrating > > resources like online databases. > > > > *4.* This question is actually related to the CONSER statistics > > form...would we consider these "authentications of existing records"? > > > > Thanks! > > --Shana > > > > -- > > ---------- > > Shana L. McDanold > > Electronic Resources & Serials Cataloging Librarian University of > > Pennsylvania Libraries Van Pelt-Dietrich Library Center 3420 Walnut > > Street Philadelphia, PA 19104-6206 > > phone: 215-746-0267 > > fax: 215-573-9610 > > e-mail: [log in to unmask] > > >