Print

Print


Isabel,

 

I think what you are doing is reasonable. I, too, check the file if what I’ve done in an authority record necessitates changes to other records and if they don’t automatically change I manually change them unless there are too many, in which case I report them to OCLC. I think this is good citizenship as part of the cooperative. But I wouldn’t go in and make changes to the 77X/78X fields. You are correct this might result in inconsistency, but I think that is a bridge too far …

 

Bob

 

Robert L. Maxwell
Ancient Languages and Special Collections Librarian
6728 Harold B. Lee Library
Brigham Young University
Provo, UT 84602
(801)422-5568

 

From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging <[log in to unmask]> On Behalf Of Quintana, Isabel
Sent: Wednesday, March 4, 2020 10:09 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: BFM in BIBCO records

 

Hi all,

I have a question about how much we clean up BIBCO records. My question has to do with the 77X-78X fields. Since these fields are not under “control” in OCLC, the heading part of the field does not change when we update NARs. For example, if a death date is added to a name, the 100/600/700 may change automatically on the BIBCO record, as long as the heading was controlled. However the same name in a 776, for example, will not change automatically.

 

Are folks manually updating these 77X-78X fields in OCLC? In their local catalogs?

 

I’m a strong proponent for making changes in OCLC, since I firmly believe we cannot afford to each update our local catalogs, and need to catalog cooperatively. However, I have to admit that I’ve been relying on the automated processes that update controlled headings in OCLC, and not going through each record to see if a 77X-78X field was present.

 

In other words, if I update an NAR, I will go so far as to search the OCLC worldcat indexes shortly afterwards. If the name/heading is now flipped to the new correct form, I don’t open up every bib record to see if a 77X-78X is present. Are folks doing that?

 

Also, in terms of BIBCO records, does this cause a problem? The 100/600/700 form of name on the BIBCO record will no longer match the 77X-78X form of name on the same record. Does this mean that BIBCO libraries should at least go into every OCLC BIBCO record when we update an NAR 1XX and check for 77X-78X fields?

 

I looked around at the documentation but can’t find any guidance.

Thanks, in advance, for your advice.

Peace,

Isabel