I discussed your questions about BIBCO documentation with some of the Univ.
of Maryland catalogers and below is our response. Thank you for the
opportunity to comment. I am sending this reply to the BIBCO list since I am
curious about what other people's reactions might be. -John Schalow
Instead of putting energy into a BIBCO Participants manual, let's start out by
calling it an editing guide and cataloging manual following the CONSER model.
Part 1 of the editing guide would contain section A with background on the
BIBCO program including the information currently in the BIBCO FAQ. Section B
would contain policies including core, record maintenance, and OCLC enhance
This model would then allow us to create cataloging modules for each element in
the cataloging record and for kinds of materials, especially music,
audiovisual, and JACKPHY. We could partner with MLA, OLAC, and CEAL to create
content. Once we establish the components of the documentation, we can split
up the responsibilities and compile the material over time since it is an
What I hear consistently from cataloging staff is how good the CONSER
documentation is. CONSER has compiled material from multiple sources and makes
it easier to train staff and answer difficult cataloging questions. The CONSER
documentation is used by many non-CONSER libraries resulting in more consistent
cataloging practices for serials in the national databases. Our goal should be
to create something equivalent for non-serials. As we compile the modules, we
can perform training sessions at ALA and regional meetings. On Fri, 19 May 2000
08:04:59 -0700 Carol Hixson <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> The PCC Standing Committee on Training is beginning to work on a BIBCO
> Participants' Manual. Before we get too far into it, I would like to
> receive input from BIBCO participants about the desired content and
> organization of such a manual and also about the scope.
> We have been using the NACO manual as a model, as far as the organization
> is concerned. Does that seem appropriate? Would participants prefer a
> different approach? Obviously, the content will be very different from the
> NACO manual. What specific topics would you like covered in the
> BIBCO Participants' Manual?
> For those of you who have seen a recent version of the BIBCO Training
> Manual, what elements of that would you like to have included in the
> Participants' Manual? What elements would you like to have excluded?
> Our plan was to use many of the examples from the Training Manual in the
> Participants' Manual. However, in the Training Manual, it was decided to
> make the examples generic so that they could be used to train either an
> RLIN or an OCLC institution. In the Participants' Manual, would you prefer
> that we have a section on RLIN records and a section on OCLC records, with
> the examples fully fleshed out for each?
> Finally, how comprehensive should we try to make the BIBCO Participants'
> Manual? Should we attempt to do anything like the CONSER Editing Guide or
> the CONSER Cataloging Manual? The CONSER Editing Guide's "primary function
> is to explain how one creates and tags an online record once the content
> of the cataloging has been determined." The CONSER Cataloging Manual
> "explains how one determines that content." Should something as
> comprehensive as the CEG and the CCM be a second step, after a basic
> BIBCO Participants' Manual is pulled together? Should it be attempted at
> all for BIBCO?
> We'd like this manual to be useful and your suggestions can help make it
> that way.
> Carol Hixson
> Chair, PCC Standing Committee on Training
Special Collections Cataloger/Coordinator
University of Maryland Libraries
[log in to unmask]