Best Practices for Bibliographic Records from Non-OCLC Sources

Submitted to ILCSO User’s Advisory Group (IUAG)
by the Consortial Cataloging and Authority Control (CCAC) Committee
September 26, 2005

Approved by IUAG October 6, 2005

Updated October 2006 by the I-Share Cataloging and Authority Control Team (ICAT) to incorporate consortial and system name changes.

BACKGROUND

Until recently, I-Share libraries sourced nearly all of their cataloging records from OCLC, either directly or indirectly through the use of the union catalog as a source of copy cataloging. However, there has lately been an increase in the use of records from other sources. This development comes about largely, although not entirely, as a consequence of the growing number of electronic resources being acquired by I-Share libraries and the availability of MARC record sets to go with them. The use of these records has potentially important consequences for the future of the I-Share Universal Catalog (UC).

The issues surrounding the use of vendor-supplied records in I-Share databases fall into two main categories: the provision of system control numbers, and restrictions placed by vendors on the use of records. This document represents the recommendations by CCAC for dealing with both of these categories.

(1) System Control Numbers

System control numbers are essential to effective duplicate control. They provide a unique record identifier that is the key to preventing unwanted proliferation of records, and also to preventing the misidentification of materials through the accidental replacement of one record by a record describing something else. For details on I-Share’s duplicate detection processing for the Universal Catalog, see http://www.carli.illinois.edu/mem-prod/I-Share/secure/cat/UC_dupdetect.html.

System control numbers are also essential to many types of automated maintenance. For example, if a record is to be updated with a more recent version of itself – to update a URL, for instance – it must be possible to match the new record with the old one.

OCLC records invariably have a unique identifier, the OCLC number, by dint of having been in that database. Vendor-supplied records present a more complex situation.

They may altogether lack a system control number. The absence of any unique identifier results in the inability to de-duplicate records. Thus, if four libraries independently acquire the same bibliographic record, there will be four copies of the record in the UC, unless the records are suppressed in the local database.
They may include a control number that identifies the record incorrectly. This is sometimes a problem with records that have been generated by means of a bulk process in which records describing one format have been adapted to describe another. In some cases, such records have been found to retain an existing OCLC number, LCCN or other identifier that originally belonged to a different version of the resource. The retention of these numbers can cause false overlays both in the UC and in local catalogs.
They may provide a unique identifier, but one that is specific to that vendor. The vendor-specific number will serve to de-duplicate the record against other copies of the record from the same vendor, but not against an OCLC record for the same title. While this outcome is not ideal, it is far preferable to the absence of any duplicate control.

In some cases, records for the same title are available both from OCLC and from another source. Although the OCLC record is preferable for duplicate matching purposes, and will not have any restrictions on its further use within I-Share, there may be good reasons for preferring records from the alternative source. For example:

a vendor may supply a set of records for all the titles in a collection, so that they do not need to be cataloged individually
a vendor may maintain the records for that collection, e.g. updating URLs when they change
a vendor or other source may supply the records at no additional charge. (OCLC WorldCat collection sets are currently not included in the group services contract.)
the vendor’s record may be of better quality

Recommendations to libraries regarding System Control Numbers:

R1. In general, prefer records from OCLC to records from other sources. This is consistent with the Cooperative Cataloging Guidelines for I-Share Databases http://www.carli.illinois.edu/mem-prod/I-Share/cat/coop_cat_guidelines.html, and in particular the second guideline. But libraries may take into account considerations of currency, quality, cost and ease of maintenance.

R2. Strongly prefer records that are uniquely identified by an institution/vendor code and a control number. They may be given in the 003 and 001 fields respectively (e.g. 003 OCoLC, 001 ocm12345678) or concatenated together in the 035 field (e.g. (OCoLC)ocm12345678).

R3. Do what you can to ensure that the unique identifier is, where appropriate*, an OCLC number. Ask vendors to supply each MARC record with the appropriate OCLC number and LCCN where the option is available.

R4. Libraries are very strongly encouraged to remove, or ask vendors to exclude, all inappropriate* OCLC, LCCN and other control numbers from any records being loaded into your catalog, and then subsequently into the UC.

*An OCLC number, LCCN or other system identifier is appropriate when the record in the originating database describes the same item as the record acquired from the vendor. For example, the OCLC number is appropriate if both the OCLC record and the vendor record describe the electronic version from the same vendor; it is not appropriate when the OCLC record describes the print version and the vendor record is coded solely to represent the electronic version.

(2) Restrictions on Record Use

Some vendors supply records to a local library with a contractual condition that they are not to be contributed to a shared database or union catalog. Other vendors allow the records to be contributed, but state that the records are not to be downloaded by other libraries unless they have obtained rights from the vendor to do so.

Over time, prohibitions on contributing records to the UC may erode its usefulness. Moreover, if the I-Share union catalog were ever to revert to a single shared database, any restrictions on the use of records by other libraries could result in the necessity to remove those records from the database entirely.

Recommendations to libraries regarding Restrictions on Record Use:

R5. If a record may be contributed to the UC but may not be downloaded without prior agreement with the vendor, libraries are very strongly encouraged to insert or have the vendor insert the following statement in a 590 field: RECORD LICENSED BY [VENDOR NAME] FOR USE BY [LIBRARY CODE]. DO NOT USE THIS RECORD WITHOUT VENDOR’S PERMISSION.

R6. Make every effort to have prohibitions on contributing records to the UC waived. When negotiating the acquisition of MARC records from vendors, inform vendors of measures taken within I-Share to control unauthorized use of records. These include (a) the insertion of a 590 use restriction note (see R5 above), and (b) the Cooperative Cataloging Guidelines http://www.carli.illinois.edu/mem-prod/I-Share/cat/coop_cat_guidelines.html.

R7. If it is not possible to obtain a vendor’s agreement to allow its records to be copied to the UC, libraries are very strongly encouraged to code the records, or have the vendor code the records, so that they are eligible to be loaded into the local database as suppressed from the UC. Details on this coding are available from http://www.carli.illinois.edu/mem-prod/I-Share/cat/UC_suppr_049u.html.

Also, libraries are strongly encouraged to provide a record in your local catalog and in the UC to represent the relevant collection as a whole. In most cases the collection will have a readily identifiable title under which it may be cataloged: for examples, see OCLC #53285706 and #53816976. If no title is readily identifiable, create a collection-level record following the guidelines described by the Library of Congress in Cataloging Service Bulletin numbers 53 and 78.