Thanks to Paige for noting that I did write about the use of edition statements to help differentiate records for resources that are legitimately not duplicates. For good measure, and because it obviously bears repeating, here is the relevant paragraph from my message of October 29: One of the most effective ways of assuring that bibliographic records reflecting subtle differences between similar resources are not merged incorrectly by DDR is to use the power that both AACR2 1.2B4 and RDA 2.5.1.4 give to catalogers. AACR2 1.2B4 (and the corresponding rules in subsequent chapters, including 3.2B3) and their associated LCRIs allow the optional addition of an edition statement: “If an item lacks an edition statement but is known to contain significant changes from other editions, supply a suitable brief statement in the language and script of the title proper and enclose it in square brackets.” LCRI 1.2B4 further states: “Do not apply this optional rule to any case of merely supposed differences in issues that might make them different editions. Apply the option for manifest differences where the catalog records would otherwise show exactly the same information in the areas beginning with the title and statement of responsibility area and ending with the series area.” RDA 2.5.1.4 allows essentially the same option: “If a resource lacks an edition statement but is known to contain significant changes from other editions, supply an edition statement, if considered important for identification or access.” If there is a date associated with these different versions, it is fully in keeping with these instructions to include that date as part of the edition statement in field 250. As I read them, both Cartographic Materials 2B4 and the passages on edition statements in RDA and Cartographic Resources are consonant with these practices. Although it is not map-specific and, because of when it was created largely predates RDA, the 2010 OCLC Webinar “Cataloging Defensively: When to Input a New Record in the Age of DDR” (http://www.oclc.org/en-US/events/2010/cataloging-defensively-20101028.html) remains useful for its advice on trying to avoid incorrect merges. To follow up on my message of last week, and to reinforce the importance of reporting incorrect duplicates to us (to [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> or to [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>), the merge that Angie reported has given us the opportunity to experiment with several ways of making Duplicate Detection and Resolution (DDR) work better. It’s allowed us to fine-tune how we look at certain kinds of edition statements and their relationship to quoted notes that may contain dates. We are also looking at more comprehensive ways of looking for alphanumeric identifiers in quoted notes. I hope this also lets you know how seriously we take our responsibility for DDR and its constant improvement. Just a tiny correction to what Paige said. Those of us in the Quality Control area are indeed a relatively small group, but I don’t oversee any of them. (Some question how well I oversee myself.) Cynthia Whitacre is the Department Manager of WorldCat Quality, to whom seven of us report. One of Cynthia’s reports is Laura Ramsey, the Section Manager of Quality Control, to whom five report. Jay -- Jay Weitz OCLC · Senior Consulting Database Specialist, Data Infrastructure and WorldCat Quality Management 6565 Kilgour Place, MC 139, Dublin, Ohio USA 43017-3395 T +1-614-764-6156 · T +1-800-848-5878, ext. 6156 · F +1-614-718-7195 [OCLC]<http://www.oclc.org/home.en.html?cmpid=emailsig_logo> OCLC.org<http://www.oclc.org/home.en.html?cmpid=emailsig_link> · Facebook<http://www.facebook.com/pages/OCLC/20530435726> · Twitter<http://twitter.com/oclc> · YouTube<http://www.youtube.com/OCLCvideo> From: Maps-L: Map Librarians, etc. [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Paige G. Andrew Sent: Saturday, October 31, 2015 7:50 PM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: OCLC incorrectly merging map records Actually John, I believe Jay Weitz did mention this solution, and possibly one or two others, but simply did not provide an example showing it, in the manner that you did. LC G&M catalogers have been using this technique for many years. For me the issue becomes; if there isn't a date of any kind or some other obvious difference to indicate a change from an existing record and one I may be creating that might actually become a duplicate, how much time am I going to put into looking through the cartographic content to try and spot meaningful differences to indicate that something is a "new" edition? As I've followed this conversation from its beginning with Angie's post, I also am wondering if catalogers are proactively checking to see if something they have created has been merged (correctly or incorrectly) and if so, how? I know I certainly do not have time to somehow monitor every record I create (and admit that I don't create all that many per year that perhaps others do) and so how are you finding out that a record has been incorrectly merged? I report duplicates on a pretty consistent basis and believe I make good decisions about whether two or more records are actually describing the same map, but at times some records are woefully short on descriptive elements to make me feel 100% sure about whether something is a duplicate or not and in those cases I err on not considering them a duplicate. If the deciding factor on whether something is or is not a match lies in data in 500 notes then I can see why the Duplicate Detection System could fail to account for something truly being a different edition at times. Its good to hear from Jay that the QC group and others at OCLC continue to tweak the DDS to make it better based on input from catalogers, and I am confident that the small group of folks he oversees do the right thing the vast majority of time to the benefit of us all. Paige ________________________________ From: "John Stevenson" <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> To: "[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>" <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> Sent: Friday, October 30, 2015 9:38:45 AM Subject: Re: OCLC incorrectly merging map records Looking through the responses, I didn't see the answer that I thought worked for special collections book and GPO map catalogers: include an edition statement, e.g. 250 |a [Planimetric edition.] rather than 5XX notes. Colleagues suggest that otherwise similar records with unique values in field 250 are not merged by OCLC. I hope this helps. On Wed, Oct 28, 2015 at 4:23 PM, Angela R Cope <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote: I just discovered another record from my catalog that got incorrectly merged in OCLC. The map is an OSS map from 1943 with the same title as another map but each have different dates (months indicated in a 500 note) and different map number identifiers (also indicated in a 500 note). See oclc number 793401057 that was merged (incorrectly) with 701552600. The title and date fields (008 and 260/264) match but the 500 notes described what distinguished the two maps from one another. My library doesn't even hold the map that OCLC now says we hold. Is there a committee from MAGIRT or WAML that is working with OCLC regarding this incorrect merging of catalog map records? Should we - map catalogers, special collections catalogers - be keeping a record of these incorrect mergers as we discover them and then reporting them as a unified group? I'm sure for every one we discover, there are many others going undetected. I've reported this error via OCLC's error reporting method. We need to express some concern about the frequency of this problem to OCLC. Why are we entering data into a shared catalog if it's just getting deleted by their computers? -Angie Angie Cope American Geographical Society Library UW Milwaukee Libraries 2311 E. Hartford Avenue Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53211 http://www.uwm.edu/Libraries/AGSL Hours: M-F 8:00am-4:30pm [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> (414)229-6282<tel:%28414%29229-6282> / (800)558-8993<tel:%28800%29558-8993> (US TOLL FREE) / (414)229-3624<tel:%28414%29229-3624> (FAX) 43°03'8"N 87°57'21"W Like us on Facebook: www.facebook.com/agslibrary<http://www.facebook.com/agslibrary> Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/agslibrary/ -- John A. Stevenson Associate Librarian, Student Multimedia Design Center University of Delaware Library 181 S. College Ave. Newark, DE 19717-5267 302 831-8671 [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>