D. Brooking wrote:
OCLC does not yet have a way to make institutional bib records (i.e., the locally customized versions of master records) available for search and discovery. Though they are pursuing ways of making some kinds of local data available in local holdings records, this solution will not extend to basic bibliographic fields in the master records in the foreseeable future. And WorldCat Local cannot provide help like cross-references for controlled vocabularies, partly because it is difficult to envision how to implement that in a database that contains so many different controlled vocabularies.
Actually, we solved this problem at the University of California in the MELVYL catalog in 1982, so I know it can be done, and in a variety of ways. There are library systems other than OCLC that do allow this. A few I know of: In the original MELVYL catalog, the manifestation record in the database retained each field from each contributor, and it was possible for each field to see who had contributed it. What this meant was that if one library contributed a record with a unique subject heading, all of the bibliographic records for that manifestation would be retrieved in a default search. Our smaller libraries were able to take advantage of this by doing minimum cataloging and gaining all of the access points contributed by the larger catalogs without having to do that work themselves. Another possibility is the RLG-style clustering, which OCLC is working to implement.The way that Ex Libris' Aleph union catalog manages locally contributed records is functionally similar to RLG's clusters. I believe that each unique heading adds access to the entire cluster, but I'd have to think that through a bit more (it's been a while and I'm somewhat rusty on Aleph functionality). I don't think we should shy away from something because OCLC doesn't do it. I realize they are the big fish in our pond, but they are not necessarily the most technically advanced in all areas. In this case I think they have an historical reason for using the master record which dates back to a time when computer power just wasn't great enough to keep all of the locally created records in a single database. Changing to a new format when you are as big as OCLC is isn't a trivial matter, but I know that they understand the advantages to their users. As for managing multiple vocabularies, there shouldn't be a big difference between managing one or two or a dozen vocabularies as long as each vocabulary uses a standard format (not a proprietary format unique to that list provider). The fields that use the vocabularies need to clearly identify which vocabulary is being used, and not mix the vocabulary data with non-vocabulary data in the same data element. We are moving toward SKOS [1] as a standard for thesaurus-type vocabularies. Someone else may need to chime in as to whether SKOS is the most suitable for plain list vocabularies (e.g. the list of resource types in MARC) or for the more structured vocabularies, like the ISO language codes that have both a code and a display form of the language. I think it is already being used for vocabularies of this nature. kc -- ----------------------------------- Karen Coyle / Digital Library Consultant [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.kcoyle.net ph.: 510-540-7596 skype: kcoylenet fx.: 510-848-3913 mo.: 510-435-8234 ------------------------------------
