Print

---

Hello,

I've been reading with interest all the comments on both ARLIS-L and Autocat about the impending merger of RLIN and OCLC.  After reading Liz O'Keefe's recent message I've decided to weigh in on the matter. 

When I was first introduced to RLIN back in the early 1990's I was amazed at the depth and quality of the cataloging copy that was available.  My institution, The Cleveland Museum of Art, had a short list of library identifiers whose copy was deemed to be "acceptable."  This list was comprised of the most notable research libraries in the country (all ivy league) and the most notable museum library's with similar sized collections and similar cataloging practices.  As a copy cataloger, I could depend on finding a well put together record with notes and tracings similar to the practice of my institution, which would require the most minimal handling on my part.  When a merger between OCLC and RLIN was proposed in 1992 or 93 I was shocked and dismayed at the thought of loosing such a vital resource as access to everyone's individual records. 

Today I do not feel this way.  In fact I am embracing this change wholeheartedly.  Why you may ask? Quite simply this.  Most of the libraries that make up our shortlist these days are OCLC libraries that really don't catalog on RLIN.  They upload their holdings from OCLC.  There is little if no difference from record to record.  Many of the LI's on our list have joined the BIBCO program as well and are loading primarily core level records.  Granted records from our fellow museum libraries still have something to offer in that a few still have tracing policies similar to ours.  However, I have to balance that with the fact that OCLC seems to have available copy for more items quicker (especially LC and vendor records) than RLIN.  We searched items from our back log in both utilities and found similar quality and similar match rates and a few that had some form of copy in OCLC when none existed in RLIN. 

I also feel the days of cataloging strictly on a bibliographic utility are near over.  We are migrating to a new ILS where our optimum workflow will be to catalog on our system pulling records in using a z39.50 connection and upload our holdings to a utility.  Cataloging in this manner will take full advantage of our ILS and its capabilities and will allow us to select copy from many different libraries as well as a bibliographic utility. RLIN unfortunately, doesn't lend itself to this type of cataloging.  Accessing it through your own system limits your results to simply the first record in the cluster, hence loosing the ability to access the full cluster.  In this sense, RLIN will function much like OCLC.   

Then there is the issue of record maintenance.  I question how many libraries these days take the time to update their RLIN records.  Back in the days when we produced shelflist cards, we carefully double checked them for errors.  Errors affecting searchable fields were then corrected in our own system as well as RLIN.  When we stopped producing shelflist cards we, like many places stopped correcting RLIN records.  In fact once and item is cataloged, we never go back to the RLIN record unless we withdraw it.  How many times have we all seen and used records that include the same typo replicated in every record in the cluster? At least in OCLC we would have the opportunity to become an enhanced user and could correct such mistakes on the master record. 

Also as a point of interest I recently learned that while technically it is true that once you hit "send" the edits you make to an OCLC master  record are gone, but OCLC does archive your edits in its own files so that if you ever had to rebuild your catalog from scratch, you can do it based on the record you imported into your system and not the master record.

For me, my greatest concerns regarding the merger are that RLG special services and databases be preserved.  Specifically SHARES and SCIPIO.  I do hope that exchange agreements in SHARES be preserved and that we do not have to open our collections to the entire OCLC membership in order to participate in inter-library loan. The Cleveland Museum of Art was a founding member of SCIPIO and  my hope is that OCLC recognize and preserves the unique qualities of this data as we have done.  I would hate to see SCIPIO dumped into Worldcat.  My hope is that it is preserved as a special database complete with its own unique structure and indexes.

Lori

Lori Ann Thorrat
Associate Librarian for Bibliographic Access
Ingalls Library
Cleveland Museum of Art
tel. 216-707-2557
fax 216-421-0921
[log in to unmask]

.