OCLC can record the fact that you have an item corresponding to OCLCnum
X, without them having to put your vendor-supplied record into
Worldcat. You can attach a 'holding' in Worldcat to an OCLC record,
without actually using the OCLC record in your local database, or
sharing your own local record with OCLC.
I don't know exactly how the internal OCLC routines work, especially for
this service that Deborah tells us about I hadn't heard of before. But
if I were OCLC, that's how I'd do it. (I have been told by catalogers
that it's possible to attach a notice-of-holding to a record in Worldcat
_without_ actually downloading or using the Worldcat record in your own
catalog.)
[ Of course, if you did this with vendor-supplied records, and were
using Worldcat Local, then you'd be paying for vendor supplied records
_solely_ for the purpose of then giving them to OCLC (possibly for an
additional fee) so OCLC could match them to Worldcat records and attach
your holdings. Not necessarily the best use of your money, but on the
other hand this might indeed be the most cost effective option given our
bizarre outdated inefficient systems.]
Jonathan
Ross Singer wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 1:15 PM, Jonathan Rochkind <rochkind_at_jhu.edu> wrote:
>
>> Deborah Fritz suggests that OCLC has a service where they will match your
>> vendor records to OCLC records representing the same manifestation/edition,
>> and then simply return them to you. The records will not be entered into
>> WorldCat. The records will (presumably) not be retained by OCLC. There would
>> be no "making available to others" going on.
>>
>
> Sure there would, in the case of WCL, at least. It's a centralized
> database that it works upon, right? What good is this discovery
> interface if parts of your collection are undiscoverable because they
> cannot be legally indexed by it?
>
> -Ross.
>
>
Received on Fri Apr 24 2009 - 14:28:59 EDT