Print

Print


My suggestion is option D ... put the effort into planning for the time 
when we will leave records behind us for something more linked-data 
oriented, associating various data points with a resource ...

Phil

On 10/29/2013 6:56 AM, Whitacre,Cynthia wrote:
>
> Hello BIBCO Colleagues:
>
> This is an admittedly long message, but please read all of it, as your 
> opinion and thoughts are requested.
>
> OCLC is contemplating making a change in our “when to input a new 
> record” standards as published in Bibliographic Formats and Standards 
> Chapter 4, as well as in our internal merging standards for what is 
> considered a duplicate.  We’d like your help in reaching a decision.  
> The element in question is the place of publication.
>
> Currently in Chapter 4 of BFAS 
> (http://www.oclc.org/bibformats/en/input.html) under 260 subfield a 
> (we know we need to add 264 to this) we list some instances where 
> minor differences in place are acceptable for considering the records 
> to be the same. However, the basic statement says that “differences in 
> the place of publication justify a new record.”
>
> One of the reasons we have traditionally NOT merged “duplicate” 
> records when everything else is the same is when place of publication 
> differs.  Here is what our current internal merge instructions say:
>
> *260*
>
> Subfield $a guidelines
>
> ·Records may be considered duplicates for merge even with the absence 
> or presence of the subfield a.
>
> ·Always match 1^st place of publication.
>
> Examples:
>
> ·New York matches New York, Toronto
>
> ·London, Orlando matches London, Toronto
>
> ·New York does *not* match Toronto, New York
>
> ·New York, Bombay does *not* match Bombay, New York
>
> */Note:/* Places of publication within the same country are considered 
> a match and justify a merge.
>
> ·New York, Chicago matches Chicago, New York
>
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
> For example, look at these 3 publication statements from 3 WorldCat 
> records for the same title:
>
> 264 1 Cheltenham, UK : ǂb Edward Elgar, ǂc [2013]
>
> 260   Cheltenham : ǂb Edward Elgar, ǂc 2013.
>
> 260 Northampton, Mass. : ǂb E. Elgar Pub., ǂc 2013.
>
> Under our current OCLC criteria for place, we would merge the first 
> two but not the third (assuming everything else matched).
>
> Looking at the cataloging codes, here’s what *AACR2* says:
>
> *1.4C5.* If two or more places in which a publisher, distributor, 
> etc., has offices are named in the item, give the first named place. 
> Give any subsequently named place that is given prominence by the 
> layout or typography of the source of information. If the first named 
> place and any place given prominence are not in the home country of 
> the cataloguing agency, give also the first of any subsequently named 
> places that is in the home country. Omit all other places.
>
> cid:[log in to unmask]
>
> And,*RDA *says:
>
> 2.8.2.4
>
> More Than One Place of Publication
>
> If more than one place of publication is named on the source of 
> information, record the place names in the order indicated by the 
> sequence, layout, or typography of the names on the source of information.
>
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
> Our thinking, in random order:
>
> ·It has always seemed that cataloger’s judgment is at play regarding 
> what gets recorded, no matter which code is in use.
>
> ·RDA gives a bit more leeway than AACR2.  In our discussions, we are 
> of two minds regarding this.
>
> ·In the past, when the same content was published in two countries (UK 
> publication and US publication for example), it often came out at 
> different times and may have had bibliographic significance. We are 
> not so certain that is the case today.
>
> ·Many reported duplicates and perceived duplicates exist in WorldCat 
> because of the policy of not matching places of publication in 
> different countries when everything else matches.
>
> ·End users really don’t care about these distinctions when it comes to 
> obtaining the content and find the multiple records confusing
>
> ·Records for remote electronic resources, are often created by content 
> providers through automated means, and careful checking of the actual 
> publication is often not done; thus the accuracy of place of 
> publication may be meaningless in many records for electronic resources.
>
> ·Distinctions like this will continue to matter for rare books.
>
> So, we are left with some choices:
>
> A) Continue with the current policy, and require different WorldCat 
> records for different places of publication
>
> B) Modify the current policy to allow the merging of records (and 
> matching of records) with different places of publication for non-rare 
> materials if everything else matches.
>
> C) Stick with the current policy for tangible resources, but allow 
> matching/merging of records for different places of publication for 
> records for remotely-accessed resources only.
>
> D) Another alternative entirely; suggestions welcome!
>
> We would welcome discussion and input on this matter.  Which of the 
> choices, A, B, or C do you prefer? If you prefer D, please suggest the 
> alternative that you have in mind.  We have asked BIBCO colleagues, 
> since we believe this is a larger issue with records for monographic 
> materials rather than with records for continuing resources.  Please 
> share your thoughts on the BIBCO list.  If you prefer to send a 
> message directly to OCLC, send it to [log in to unmask] 
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>, as that will go to the appropriate people.  
> We welcome comments through November 15, as we will be discussing this 
> again at OCLC the week of November 18 to try to reach a decision.
>
> Thank you!
>
> Cynthia M. Whitacre
>
> Manager, WorldCat Quality & Partner Content Dept.
>
> OCLC
>
> 800-848-5878, ext. 6183
>
> [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>


-- 
Philip E. Schreur
Head, Metadata Department
Stanford University
650-723-2454
650-725-1120 (fax)