Print

Print


I would like to second Robert Bratton's suggestion that OCLC place more
emphasis on user-reported duplicates, and especially on actually correcting
such duplicates.  In the area in which I work (scores and sound
recordings), as is probably the case in many others, this would be a very
big help.

Thank you,

Beth

---
Beth Iseminger
Chair, Music Library Association, Bibliographic Control Committee
Music and Media Catalog Librarian
Loeb Music Library
Harvard University
[log in to unmask]



On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 9:09 AM, Robert Bratton <[log in to unmask]>wrote:

> 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]>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]]
>> *On Behalf Of *Trumble, Bruce
>>
>> *Sent:* Tuesday, November 12, 2013 11:34 AM
>> *To:* [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]<[log in to unmask]>]
>> *On Behalf Of *Whitacre,Cynthia
>> *Sent:* Tuesday, October 29, 2013 9:57 AM
>> *To:* [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 1st 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.
>>
>>
>>
>> [image: 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], 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]
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>