If you do an authority keyword search on the words “last identity” as a note in OCLC Connexion, there are 460 records retrieved, many of which are several or more years old.  I infer either that the NACO library actually did not report them for deletion, or that they did but that they never got deleted by LC staff.

If you search for “reported for deletion” in the same way, there are 600 records retrieved. Some of these are over a decade (!) old.

You also get some results in the sets where the brief display list for some says “This record is no longer available.”   I don’t understand those at all - perhaps someone at OCLC can explain what these are?

Adam L. Schiff

Principal Cataloger

University of Washington Libraries

From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Robert M. TALBOTT
Sent: Monday, January 08, 2018 12:53 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: 667 to indicate report for complex correction or cancellation

Folks:

One of the duties that fell into my court oh so many years ago was the reportage of duplicates in the authority file, where it has remained.  I've consequently seen the ebb and flow of response times, and up until recently the deletions always occurred within a reasonable time frame.

"Until recently." Yes, the delay between the time a duplicate or error is reported and the moment the dupe is cancelled/ error corrected has moved from days to months.  A casual glance in my  "pending" file shows unfilled requests for cancellation dating back at least to August 2017.

I am sure that there is a perfectly reasonable explanation  for the delay, and truth be told, even without knowing the exact causes, LC has my sympathies.  No doubt the volume is high and the work thankless. I doubt too that there is an end in sight.  

How then do we prevent (or at least alert) others from using the duplicate or from aggravating the identified complex error while we are waiting for a cancellation or remedy?

The whole point of this email:  I think including a 667 within the affected records  would be an obvious choice, something like:

667  Duplicate heading: [actual heading & maybe the LCCN] reported for cancellation [date].

or

667  Record reported for cancellation; it duplicates  [heading & maybe LCCN].  The latter heading should be used.

or 

667 Literary number PH3328.21 (range is actually PH3382.21) assigned in error, reported [date].

I don't think this is breaking any new ground.  In fact, I seem to recall that I've seen these sorts of notes once or twice over the years, but who knows?  Maybe I just dreamed it. Still, it seems reasonable to ask before starting to track these things.

So: Is there any reason to not track these sorts of things in a 667?  Perhaps there's a better way to track than a 667?

Any and all responses are welcome.

Thanks & Cheers

Bob

-- 

Bob Talbott

Principal cataloger/Hebraica cataloger

UC Berkeley

250 Moffitt

Berkeley, CA 94720

I'm just mad about Saffron