[Eril-l] OCLC collection missing Sept 2018 titles from Oxford Scholarship Online

Melissa Belvadi mbelvadi at upei.ca
Fri Dec 21 07:19:46 PST 2018

Thank you for raising (perhaps again) this point - I hope it doesn't get
lost in your rather specific subject line.

I've just been struggling with trying to analyze certain major vendor ebook
subscription collections via the marc records they've provided us, and I am
absolutely horrified at the poor quality of some key metadata they are
providing, such basic stuff as pubdate and publisher name.

MARC/AACR/RDA standards are written so loosely to accommodate individual
librarian/library preferences for individual books, and I think content
providers are taking advantage of such flexibility to give us metadata that
makes it extremely difficult to manage large sets of records/holdings.

ISO is in the middle of doing a major revision of their standard for
"Information and documentation -- Presentation and identification of
part of their Information and Documentation series:

I think we need to develop a standard or at least "recommended practice"
for ebooks, with comparable detail and requirements for consistency of
In the NASIG "Standards" group, we're just beginning a discussion about
ebook metadata, initially focused on just the problems of ISBNs, but Jeff's
post makes me think we should look more broadly at ebook metadata and go
beyond individual cataloguing rules and consider special rules about
consistency within collections.
If anyone knows of any work already being done on such standards/rules,
please let us know.

Melissa Belvadi
Collections Librarian
University of Prince Edward Island
mbelvadi at upei.ca  902-566-0581
my public calendar
Make an appointment <https://mbelvadi.youcanbook.me/> via YouCanBookMe

On Fri, Dec 21, 2018 at 10:58 AM J Siemon <jsiemon2002 at gmail.com> wrote:

> OCLC Knowledge Base collection Oxford Scholarship Online Religion =
> OUP.osoReligion is missing the Sept 2018 Religion titles from Oxford
> Scholarship Online, and three older titles.  OCLC and Oxford are both
> excellent organizations, yet sometimes even reliable vendors make mistakes.
> This is a good example of a larger issue I've been discussing at
> conferences for the last couple years.  Libraries need to devote
> significantly more staff resources to reviewing collection metadata.
> Libraries hire thousands of catalogers, who spend time reviewing MARC data
> for *individual* titles.  I'm convinced that some of these people/staff
> resources need to be reallocated to review the accuracy of *collection*
> level data.  Book and journal budgets have shifted toward purchasing
> collections of eResources (instead of individual titles).  Library staffing
> needs to shift in a similar manner, toward reviewing and correcting
> collection level metadata in addition to individual title data.  When
> collection level data is wrong, tens, and sometime hundreds of e-books or
> e-articles are not available to our patrons.
> I've contacted support staff at both organizations.
> I don't know whether Oxford neglected to send this data or OCLC neglected
> to load these titles.
> In any case more library staff need to be devoted to noticing these
> collection level metadata issues, and trouble-shooting with vendors to make
> the corrections.  See my article from the Charleston Conference, 2017,
>  "You May Own It . . . But Can They Find It? A Panel Discussion: Part 3 of
> Panel Presentation: Collection-Level Cooperative Cataloging"
> https://dx.doi.org/10.5703/1288284316663 or some of my presentations at
> slideshare https://www.slideshare.net/jsiemon/presentations
> All the best,
> Jeff Siemon
> _______________________________________________
> Eril-l mailing list
> Eril-l at lists.eril-l.org
> http://lists.eril-l.org/listinfo.cgi/eril-l-eril-l.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.eril-l.org/pipermail/eril-l-eril-l.org/attachments/20181221/33c79722/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the Eril-l mailing list