Print

Print


Possibly relevant to this discussion, I was just reading the report of the OCLC Expert Community meeting from ALA Midwinter.  One question was, “What can be done about junk fields, including inappropriate subject headings and local 856 fields, that have transferred from incoming records and proliferated?”

 

The answer was, “For too long, Data Sync was allowing the transfer of more data, including 6XX and 856 fields, than we would have preferred.  Because of important revisions we have recently installed to rein in the excessive transfer of such fields, that problem has been alleviated.  We have been working and will continue to work to clean up as much as we can.  But we urge you to use the powers you have as members of the cooperative and the Expert Community to manually clean up those records that you encounter, as well.”

 

                                                                                Steve McDonald

                                                                                [log in to unmask]

 

 

From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging <[log in to unmask]> On Behalf Of Jessica Janecki
Sent: Friday, March 29, 2019 1:56 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] Evolution of a master record in OCLC

 

The rules about the number of headings apply to LCSH. The number of LCSH on the example record don’t seem to have increased over what is on the record in LC’s catalog. What has been added are FAST, BICASH, and some local headings (indicator 4).

 

Jessica

 

From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging <[log in to unmask]> On Behalf Of Yang Wang
Sent: Friday, March 29, 2019 1:49 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] Evolution of a master record in OCLC

 

I feel the same way. I  do care about how a bib record should look to the public. Some libraries may not have the said programs to filter out certain “controlled” subject headings and they may not have enough staff to examine each record like this one and do a manual clean-up.

 

If we think that “Civil rights movement” is a user-friendly addition to “Civil rights movements,” then, by fuzzy logic, shouldn’t we add “Civil rights movement” to every single bib that has “650 #0 Civil rights movements” in the entire database? Why not?! Why would we want to prioritize and improve the accessibility of this particular resource, ignoring the rest?

 

Is there a limit to the number of subject headings assigned to each bib? I am old-fashioned. But I remember this (SHM180.3):

 

[log in to unmask]">

 

The record example I gave earlier, unfortunately, contains 25 headings. The original set of headings assigned by the LC cataloger is barely discernable to the public (in OPAC). Frankly, I am not an advocate of FAST headings. If we were to take out all LCSH headings from this record, what would we be left with?

 

Just for an experiment, use and re-arrange the existing FAST headings, see what we would get.

 

Yang

 

 

From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Herrold, Charles
Sent: Friday, March 29, 2019 11:39 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] Evolution of a master record in OCLC

 

     We use only LCSH and LCGFT, for the most part; our system filters out at least some of the others and we can delete what we don't want manually.  I agree with everything said here, but just want to comment on how inelegant (if you will) OCLC records have become with all of their accretions.  The 040 of this one is typical:

 

DLC ǂb eng ǂe rda ǂc DLC ǂd BDX ǂd ZQP ǂd JAI ǂd YDX ǂd FMG ǂd TXLAM ǂd IGA ǂd BUR ǂd T3B ǂd OBE ǂd OCLCQ ǂd TUL ǂd CGN ǂd BYV ǂd OCLCQ ǂd CRU ǂd LMR ǂd OCLCQ ǂd TJC ǂd OCLCQ ǂd FSS ǂd OCLCF ǂd NTG ǂd OCLCQ ǂd OCLCO ǂd OCLCQ ǂd OCLCO ǂd MTU ǂd OCLCQ ǂd PUG

 

    Three other bib records were merged into this one. Two summaries have been added as well as the various subject schemes.  I've seen many instances of the same information retained in different notes due to differences in MARC coding. Lest anyone go into attack mode here, I will say that I am an old cataloger, both in experience and age, and I still like elegant solutions.  

 

Chuck Herrold

Carnegie Library of Pittsburgh


From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging <[log in to unmask]> on behalf of McDonald, Stephen <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2019 3:16:43 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] Evolution of a master record in OCLC

 

Why would they not be allowed?  If your local library does not think they would be useful, you can filter out the vocabularies you do not want.  Our imports are configured to retain only certain vocabularies:  LCSH, MESH, FAST, the RBMS vocabularies, and a few others.  Other than the FAST headings (which are automatically generated by OCLC), you can assume someone put the headings in the record because someone found them useful.

 

                                                                        Steve McDonald

                                                                        [log in to unmask]

 

 

From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging <[log in to unmask]> On Behalf Of Yang Wang
Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2019 2:36 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: [PCCLIST] Evolution of a master record in OCLC

 

Hi All,

I was doing a set of subject heading corrections with regard to “Civil rights movements” (lcsh) vs “Civil rights movement” (series title) in the local database and found in the following bib record a plethora of “extras” in 6XX. The record was originally created and authenticated by LC (https://lccn.loc.gov/2016044049, a BSR par excellence!); now the 6XX have greatly expanded (OCoLC)ocn966314870).  

My question is: Why is this type of expansion/additions even allowed on a master record? More user friendly?

Yang

[log in to unmask]">