---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Wed, 5 Jul 1995 16:08:23 EDT From: Enrique E. Gildemeister <EEGLC%CUNYVM.bitnet@uvmvm.uvm.edu> Subject: MULVER and OCLC This message is being cross-posted to AUTOCAT, SERIALST, and USMARC. I thought I would share some thoughts about implementing the Guidelines for Bibliographic Description of Reproductions, edited by Bruce Chr. Johnson. What I'm trying to envision is the way the Guidelines are going to be implemented by MARBI's proposed changes to USMARC, Proposal 95-6, and how the implementation in OCLC OLUC will be done. I'm assuming that this must be getting discussed, but I've seen nothing on AUTOCAT or anywhere else. I put together this message from various postings and discussions with colleagues. I hope the resulting message holds together. I spent a good bit of time reading over the final published version of the _Guidelines for bibliographic description of reproductions_. I pulled out some other materials collected over the years and went through the whole thing very carefully. I've become really interested in this stuff. Bruce Johnson made a statement on AUTOCAT that one could start implementing the guidelines right away, though he thought it was best to wait until the MARBI stuff gets past. I ask, how can you implement it if the USMARC format has not been modified to accommodate the changes needed? And how will it be implemented in OCLC? I've seen MARBI Proposal 95-6. I wonder if it really solves all the problems for implementing the changes. It seems that OCLC would have to revamp the criteria for lock-and-replace (for CONSER and Enhance libraries, and also some functions for FULL mode). Interlibrary loan implications are important here too. Below is Scenario I. 1)Who will be authorized to add the reproduction description to the description of the original? You can always edit and watch stuff go pouf! back to the way it was, but to make this thing work wouldn't you really want to have broad participation doing lock-and-replace? How will we know what version people have? I know with serials, you can pull up the local data records entered for ILL and Union Listing, and it'll be clear at least whether somebody owns microfilm or hard copy. But what about monographs, e.g. microfilms and photocopies of dissertations? Will local data records have to be created for them, too? I'm just having trouble with the scenario, because if you have multiple versions of microfilm (by different filmers), yes believe it or not, when dealing with rare serials and newspapers, you get into the "Evening ed." vs. "Morning ed." or "Long Island ed." And, sometimes you get mixed editions, AND, with all your films, some issues -- but not the same ones -- are missing or badly mutilated. Yes, there are reasons for identifying multiple microforms. On principle you do want the data of the reproduction in its own description because it's non-redundant data. So why not be specific? Back to the original question of who-owns-what, "getting your symbol on" a record will not be enough, and checking a local data record or expecting that sort of info in the local data record mixes bibliographic and holdings information (which,from everything I've read, we don't want). 2) Will existing multiple records be collapsed into one retrospectively? Who will be allowed to do this? I know everyone wants to do this, but what if someone wants separate records? Will they be forbidden to enter them into the database? What about monographic versions? 3) OR, will old stuff be allowed to stay as it is, the way they allow latest entry records to vegetate in the database and not purge them? The following is Scenario II. It occurs to me that you could have separate records in OCLC of each version, including different filmings, and choose the record for one version to put your symbol on, and create a composite LDR. For all your other versions you have, you can place your symbol on each record and create a skeleton LDR on each other record for versions you own, which will tell you to see the LDR for the OCLC record with the LDR carrying the composite holdings. For your composite holdings you might use a qualifier of some sort to distinguish various multiple filmings, if you have them. Item III -- Post ALA thoughts (I was not there) Is it too early yet to find out the upshot of proposal 95-6, which dealt with the tagging issues surrounding implementation of _Guidelines for bibliographic description of reproductions_ / by CC:DA ; edited by Bruce Johnson? (published by ALA in 1995) The guidelines were very well-thought out, and it was quite apparent that a great deal of thought had gone into the final document to reach some sort of consensus. From what I can gather from what I read before the 1995 ALA Conference, the proposal submitted to MARBI (95-6) left many people dissatisfied, and many felt that the proposal did not fully address itself to all the USMARC format additions and changes needed in order to implement the Guidelines. Will the news of the adoption or rejection of the proposal be forthcoming? Is a report being planned to discuss any remaining issues that need to be addressed? The Guidelines per se do seem to me to fully cover what's needed. It would be a shame to let them be held up or have implementation postponed because we couldn't find a solution to the USMARC tagging problems involved. How long has this issue dragged on? I'm sure it's been at least 10 years. Well, there are probably some people who feel the issues will never be solved or that the whole issue of cataloging reproductions, or multiple versions, will just drag on. It makes me sad that we're *finally*,after all these years, so close to real consensus on the meat of the matter, but we may have to wait some more, again. To sum up: The Guidelines are terrific, the changes in USMARC are nebulous, and the effect of implementing the Guidelines in a shared environment with master records (i.e. OCLC) are very problematic. ******************************************************************* * Rick Gildemeister * * Head of Cataloging/OCLC Enhance Coordinator * * Lehman College, CUNY * * "Facilis descensus Averno" * * Voice: (718) 960-8831 * * Fax: (718) 960-8952 * * BITNET: eeglc@cunyvm * * Internet: eeglc@cunyvm.cuny.edu * *******************************************************************
