---------- 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                                *
*******************************************************************