I think the problem of WorldCat Local is a problem of OCLC's own making and the solution to put all the local information on the master record for the benefit of those who use OCLC Local isn't going to work in the long run. Supposing my Library chose to go with OCLC local, I would certainly want to have my own local information on the master record if that was all my users could see, but I wouldn't want to show my users the University of Washington's or Columbia's local information. That would just introduce confusion to our own users. So if we all go to WorldCat local are we going to wind up with a situation where dozens or more libraries all put their local information in the master records and then we're all supposed to put up with it and make our own users view local information from other libraries? 

As for additional access points never hurting anyone, if I'm looking for the books signed by George Washington in the my own library and, since my library forces me to view my catalog through OCLC Local, I find a heading "Washington, George, signer" on the master record because Columbia's copy has a book signed by George Washington, that *does* hurt me. If OCLC contains the local headings for George Washington signing books for a dozen libraries, including my own, my users will need to sort through which ones are which before coming up with the ones that actually belong to the BYU Library. 

I'm extremely dubious about the proposition that we should be leaving local information in master records, much less adding it.


Robert L. Maxwell
Special Collections and Ancient Languages Catalog Librarian
Genre/Form Authorities Librarian
6728 Harold B. Lee Library
Brigham Young University
Provo, UT 84602

-----Original Message-----
From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Adam L. Schiff
Sent: Monday, June 07, 2010 12:28 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: a NACO question

As Kate pointed out, removing local headings from the OCLC master record, 
when the master record IS the local catalog record for those of us who use 
WorldCat Local as our catalog (and that would include my institution), 
would adversely affect our users.  With the move toward network level 
cataloging, we need to reconsider carefully what we do to master records 
and what should and should not be deleted from them.  Fields marked with a 
subfield $5 should probably be left alone.  Additional access points on a 
record never hurt anyone.  OCLC WorldCat probably does however need to 
develop a better way of displaying local data in records. Imagine a record 
with dozens of local fields from different libraries.  There is always 
going to be a need for some local data that other libraries would not need 
or choose to include in their record.  When we are all sharing the same 
record in one shared catalog we are going to have to figure out how to let 
everyone have what they need while keeping exceptions to standard 
practices to a minimum.

I'm of two minds about whether a PCC record with local access points needs 
to have those access points under authority control.  In an ideal world, 
of course.  But I think I could live with all of the access points that 
apply to all copies of a resource being under authority control while 
access points that are only applicable to a non-PCC library's copy not 
needing an authority record.


Adam L. Schiff
Principal Cataloger
University of Washington Libraries
Box 352900
Seattle, WA 98195-2900
(206) 543-8409
(206) 685-8782 fax
[log in to unmask]

On Mon, 7 Jun 2010, Ted P Gemberling wrote:

> Amy,
> I sometimes put $5 in original records when I'm not sure something is purely local. I figure a cataloger with another copy might be interested in it, as you say. But if she recognizes it as being non-local when she sees the record, I'd have no objection to her removing the $5 code from the master record.
> And I suppose if she recognizes it as being purely local, I'd have no objection to her removing the field altogether, as long as she is mindful of the possible need another library might have for such items.
> When the only copy you have for reference is your own, it's hard to know sometimes whether something is unique to it. Maybe that's particularly true for rare book elements like cancel leaves.
> Ted Gemberling
> UAB Lister Hill Library
> (205)934-2461
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Amy Turner
> Sent: Monday, June 07, 2010 12:02 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] a NACO question
> My reading of the standards is that the $5 indicates that the heading only applies to certain copies of the work, not that it is "local" in construction.  OCLC distinguishes between completely local notes and headings, which should not be entered on master records and can be deleted, and those that "are of interest beyond the inputting library" and are identified by $5 (cf. the section on local notes in
> So, I think that the best thing to do when upgrading a record containing a $5 that one does not wish to support with an authority record is not to make it a PCC record.
> On the more general question of the size of the pool of PCC records, are others discouraged from making PCC records because present OCLC policy locks them from upgrades by non-PCC libraries (although LC records CAN be upgraded?).  I would like for the "Expert Community Experiment" to be expanded so that any library could correct or enhance a PCC record.  Or, if we really want to retain a special status for national-level records, one would think LC records would be included in that group.