The key to making changes to an OCLC record is whether you are enhancing the record. Most of the records we encounter in OCLC are hybrid records. With item in hand, and with absolutely certainty that we are applying enhancements to the correct record, I feel no guilt about RDAizing the record...  I spell out what's there. I add additional fields. I add relator codes. I even add the 086 for USGS maps when it is not present. I take nothing away. And I add a brief description of what appears on the map. 



When cataloging older maps, these descriptions will help me know if I have the same map in hand or not, as what appears to be the same map may actually have come from a different atlas and the small subtle differences are important. Occasionally, I have also found that unique catalog records that I created were later changed by someone else who did NOT have the same map in hand. In the map cataloging world, it is better to create what may be a duplicate record rather than to make the wrong assumption and destroy the other's work. When it comes to map cataloging, OCLC has agreed to allow for possible duplication because of these subtle differences and the possibilities that they may be unique. OCLC will not de-dupe (I think that's the word my expert map-cataloging colleague used) such records.



-----Original Message-----

From: Maps-L: Map Librarians, etc. [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Christopher Winters

Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2015 10:16 AM

To: [log in to unmask]

Subject: Re: Thanks and another question



Hi,



I thought OCLC had invited catalogers to convert older records to RDA? It's certainly helped the process along by adding 336, 337, and 338 fields and changing "col." to "color" and "cm." to "cm" in 300s, for example. When I've had to make major changes in a record (for example by fixing typos and/or adding call numbers, subject headings, and statements of responsibility), I've sometimes been guilty of "RDAizing"  the whole thing and replacing the record. I'll admit that I always feel a bit guilty about this, but, when I've e-mailed OCLC to ask if this is really ok, they've said yes. Something that has made me _really_ feel guilty has been when I've changed a clearly incorrect call number. This hasn't happened often, but it has.



Underlying this has been a certain level of distaste for hybrid records. OCLC has undermined the consistency and integrity of records compiled under older cataloging rules by doing partial "RDAization."



Paige may well be right to imply that this sort of thing is a bad idea. I'd be grateful for others' thoughts.



Chris Winters

University of Chicago Library

________________________________________

From: Maps-L: Map Librarians, etc. [[log in to unmask]] on behalf of Paige G. Andrew [[log in to unmask]]

Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2015 8:46 AM

To: [log in to unmask]

Subject: Re: Thanks and another quesiton



Rick,



A quick reply here and then I will try and find time to share more later. The key aspect to working with/potentially changing any master record in OCLC is the mantra "do no harm!" That means unless there are actual errors in the record or missing information needing to be added, particularly when it comes to access points, we should never second-guess the original cataloger. Another important factor is to know under which cataloging rules the record was created because what might appear to be "wrong" in a given case may be perfectly fine under an older set of rules like AACR2 (the code found in the "Desc" fixed field is the guide here).



You bring up several other aspects related to what and who can change master records in OCLC that I don't have time to touch at the moment. That's where I can share more information later on.



As for your workflow process of downloading copy from OCLC and making changes to a record within Workflows in Sirsi (we are a Sirsi unit as well) that is probably the best method for you to be using given the lack of understanding of OCLC master records. Within your own local system you are free to do whatever you want or need to do with a given record. If at some point you gain a better understanding of the master record mechanism in OCLC I would recommend doing changes in OCLC so that others benefit from your work as well as yourself, but don't go there until you are confident about the "do's and don'ts" of making changes to those master records.



Paige

________________________________

From: "Rick Grapes" <[log in to unmask]>

To: "[log in to unmask]" <[log in to unmask]>

Sent: Monday, October 19, 2015 1:19:08 PM

Subject: Thanks and another quesiton



Hi all,



I would like to express my thanks for all the input sent my way about the lat/long question and my one map with 2 scales front and back situation.  I now know what “|2bounding” means.



Years ago when I was in library school and working as a student in the map collection, I used to calculate the lat/long for map after map after map, using a meter stick and calculator.  Went thru lots of gray matter and batteries.  I hated it.  Once I became maps cataloger, I avoided calculating lat/long whenever I had the slightest excuse.  Now with the bounding site, the trauma of my  youth is eliminated.  Yeah!



One of the responses mentioned briefly we should avoid cluttering up of OCLC.  This brought to my mind another question regarding the impact of cataloging work on OCLC.



First off, let me say that I have a general/limited understanding of OCLC’s master and institutional record setup.  I regularly import from OCLC and then do all my work locally in Sirsi.  I’ve tried cataloging directly in OCLC, but my senior moments cause lots of mistakes.  “Old dog new tricks …”  Thus I’ve returned to what I know best.  But I’m unclear on what impact my work, importing, changing, and exporting, might be having on OCLC.  Will the record be automatically linked to the master record, no matter what I do?  Is it possible to upgrade an existing institution or master record, inserting improvements, without permission of the originating institution?  What fields do I need to keep or leave unchanged so that I’m assured the record will be linked to the existing master?  And the opposite is true.  When should I avoid linking to the master?  I’m just concerned that a record might be inadvertently overlaid, or a dissimilar record might be linked to a master incorrectly.

I’m probably straining at knates here.   I’m also exposing my ignorance.  Please be gentile. ☺



Thanks for your help. Again!

Rick Grapes

BYU Map Collection