 |
 |
Cynthia, after some discussion, we at Penn also feel that OCLC should not change the current policy. I also agree with Robert below that there should be more emphasis on users reporting duplicates. thank you, Katia -- Katia E. Strieck Head, Specialized Cataloging & Metadata Quality Management University of Pennsylvania Libraries Van Pelt-Dietrich Library Center 3420 Walnut Street Philadelphia, PA 19104-6206 phone: 215-746-6396 fax: 215-573-9610 e-mail: [log in to unmask] On 11/15/2013 9:41 AM, Whitacre,Cynthia wrote: > > Thanks Robert, and everyone else for your input. Input is welcome > throughout the rest of today, but none after today please, so I can > compile all the responses for consideration. > > We definitely have plans to update the chapter in BFAS about > identifying and reporting duplicates. We are concentrating on the > updating all the fields themselves right now, but hope to update the > five introductory chapters in 2014. > > Cynthia > > *From:*Program for Cooperative Cataloging > [mailto:[log in to unmask]] *On Behalf Of *Robert Bratton > *Sent:* Friday, November 15, 2013 9:10 AM > *To:* [log in to unmask] > *Subject:* Re: OCLC matching/merging question for BIBCO: place of > publication > > Cynthia, > > While I feel the pain of dealing with duplicates with the same > publisher info. recorded 10 different ways, I have to agree with Naun > and Bruce that I do *not* think OCLC should make their bib. record > merging parameters any more liberal. > > There is no good cut off date for rare books. We see some publishers > doing bizarre things in their print runs from the 19th and even into > the 20th century. The printing and publishing industries evolved very > differently in different parts of the world. > > Perhaps OCLC should place more emphasis on users reporting > duplicates. Also, since OCLC is completely updating Bibliographic > Formats and Standards, the section on identifying and reporting > duplicate records should be updated as well. > > Thank you for seeking our input, > > Robert > > -- > > Robert Bratton > > Cataloging Librarian > > George Washington University Law Library > > Washington, DC 20052 > > On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 5:26 PM, Whitacre,Cynthia <[log in to unmask] > <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote: > > Thanks Bruce, for sending this input on behalf of your colleagues. > OCLC would welcome additional input on this topic from anyone on the > BIBCO list through this Friday, November 15. > > Sincerely, > > Cynthia > > *From:*Program for Cooperative Cataloging > [mailto:[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>] *On > Behalf Of *Trumble, Bruce > > > *Sent:* Tuesday, November 12, 2013 11:34 AM > *To:* [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]> > > *Subject:* Re: OCLC matching/merging question for BIBCO: place of > publication > > Hi Cynthia, > > I’m forwarding this message on behalf of some Harvard Colleagues. > > Bruce > > Cynthia – Thank you for sending out to various listservs the > announcement about proposed changes in OCLC’s policy relating to place > of publication and matching records. We catalogers at Houghton Library > (the main special collections library at Harvard University) feel > strongly that policy should not be changed. The place of printing is > far too important to records treated by special collections catalogers > to chance losing information or creating misinformation through > computer matching. When it comes to special collections records, there > are just too many variations in records to create uniform algorithms. > As we are sure you have heard from other special collections > catalogers, great numbers of records for “rare” material are not coded > in the 040 as being cataloged using any particular set of rules. To > use a record’s dates as the determining factor is impossible for this > reason as well as the fact that many newer materials are now cataloged > using rare book cataloging standards. Additionally, what is not > considered rare today, may well be considered so in the future. We > cannot chance the fact that a book with the imprint "Cheltenham, UK: > Edward Elgar, [2013]" is the same as one with "Cheltenham: Edward > Elgar, 2013" and "Northampton, Mass.: E. Elgar Pub., 2013" when the > possibility is just as likely that they are different. In your email, > you suggest that "end users really don’t care about these distinctions > when it comes to obtaining the content and find the multiple records > confusing" – that is simply not true of the many scholars doing > historical research on a wide array of topics, many of which extend > into the 21st century. > > Thank you for giving us the opportunity to voice our opinion. > > Karen Nipps > > Head, Rare Book Team > > Houghton Library > > Harvard University > > Cambridge, MA 02138 > > Phone: 617-496-9190 > > FAX: 617-495-1376 > > *From:*Program for Cooperative Cataloging > [mailto:[log in to unmask]] *On Behalf Of *Whitacre,Cynthia > *Sent:* Tuesday, October 29, 2013 9:57 AM > *To:* [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]> > *Subject:* OCLC matching/merging question for BIBCO: place of publication > > 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]> >