Friends--
I wanted to point out two aspects of Jacqueline's questions that I thought
could be clarified. Some of this information is from the FAQs for which Hugh
provided the URLs.
First of all, no one is under any obligation to search LC's ILS ... there
never *was* such an obligation. Unless I'm badly misundertanding Hugh's comment:
"There's an implicit - and mistaken - assumption in virtually all of the
NACO documentation that people will be doing their searching for "eligible" LC bib
records on one or other of the utilities, and not searching LC's own system
directly."
That is, indeed, the assumption. It is *not* mistaken. Perhaps some
contributors consistently search LC's system, but they are not obliged to do so.
Cf. the last line of FAQ #2 answer.
2.When creating/modifying a heading for NACO contribution should
participants report BFM on
"from old catalog" and/or "oclcrep" headings found in the LC Online catalog?
No. At this time the guidelines for reporting BFM remain the same as
before the introduction
of the LC ILS. Under MUMS, these records were excluded from BFM because
the records
were considered "retrospective" and not "active." This distinction will
continue until further notice,
so it is only necessary to report BFM on DLC records you see in your
utility.
Please note the last line. Consequently, if you *are* searching LC's ILS in
addition to the "database against which you normally catalog", you have once again
confirmed the saying, "Virtue is its own reward." That said, I've given myself a
nice segue into point #2 ...
For those of us whose "database against which we catalog" happens to be OCLC,
then, yes indeed, our task has been complicated over time. There are serveral
historical occurrences that prevent a NACO/OCLC contributor from being assured of
seeing a complete picture of what might constitute headings on "active" LC
records.
1) In olden times (as my 14 year old refers to anything that transpired
more than 5 or 6 years ago), we will recall that there was no subject searching
available in OCLC. Consequently, for those of us who have contributed headings
for >15 years, our early contributions were *always* made with the caveat that
there just might be a subject hdg. on an "active" LC bib. somewhere that we had no
way of finding. Even today, a subject search requires yet *another* search AND
another charge! If I suspect that LC may indeed have used a contribution as a
subject, I have always send my BFMs in with the phrase "Hdg. may also appear as a
subj. Please verify in your files."
2) Of course there are the periodic OCLC scans of the the OLUC to do
formulaic and other maintenance (e.g., flip conference hdgs., or correct X10 $a
... but not the trailing $b's) which result in hdgs. that are "AACR2/pre-AACR".
Only persons who harken back to the "olden times" might be able to reconstruct
what the hdg. had been in the first place, and guessing is never a good thing!
So we never do it!
3) Then there are the MLC's. MLC hdgs., we are counseled, while fair game
to be considered as a source for dates and other qualifying information, should
NOT otherwise be refered to in 670s. HOWEVER, they *must* be included as part of
a BFM report. For libraries using OCLC this is fine ... IF ... a) LC's MLC record
doesn't match on an existing member's prior contribution. If it does, LC's symbol
is added to the record (as well as the LCCN, which might of been there in the
first place), but the LC bib. data is discarded ALONG WITH ANY HDGS. that might
have been on their record. And b) Even if LC's MLC record has been retained, any
encoding level "7" is fair game to *any* full cataloging member for
enhancement/enrichment that could also cast doubt on the record's original
composition.
IN OTHER WORDS ... do the best you can. It has always been my over-riding
philosophy about what we're doing here is that we want to create as many quality
records (authority, monographic, serial ... whatever) as EFFICIENTLY as possible.
Searching LC's ILS is laudable ... not required.
RCAmelung
Hugh Taylor wrote:
> "Byrd, Jacqueline Jo" wrote:
> >
> > Do NACO libraries still need to report to LC the LCCN for every LC
> > bibliographic record that needs to be changed as a result of NACO work? Now
> > that we need to view each record to determine the LCCN in a web-based
> > catalog, this can be very time consuming if there are many records and/or if
> > the response time is slow. Is there any way around this?
> >
> > Thanks
> > Jacqueline Jo Byrd
> > Head, Area Studies Cataloging Section
> > Technical Services Department
> > Indiana University Libraries
> > 1320 E. 10th St.
> > Bloomington, IN 47405
> > Phone: 812-855-4310
> > FAX: 812-855-7933
> > email: [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>
> Requirements for reporting BFM are posted at the following URL:
> http://lcweb.loc.gov/catdir/cpso/nacobfm.html
> and there's a separate FAQ dealing with "from old catalog" headings at
> http://lcweb.loc.gov/catdir/pcc/oldcatfaq.html
>
> Without re-reading the whole lot, I think it's the case that nothing has
> changed (yet) - at least so far as the _requirements_ imposed on NACO
> partners are concerned. What _has_ changed, as your message suggests, is
> the environment in which that reporting takes place. There's an implicit
> - and mistaken - assumption in virtually all of the NACO documentation
> that people will be doing their searching for "eligible" LC bib records
> on one or other of the utilities, and not searching LC's own system
> directly. This wasn't the case with MUMS, and isn't the case with
> Voyager. As you rightly point out, however, it's currently more
> time-consuming to generate a list of the LCCNs of the records on which
> BFM is required with Voyager in place than it was with MUMS. Simply
> because one has to call up each full record individually.
> --
> Hugh Taylor
> Head of Cataloguing, Cambridge University Library
> West Road, Cambridge CB3 9DR, England
>
> email: [log in to unmask] fax: +44 (0)1223 339973
> phone: +44 (0)1223 333069 (with voicemail) or
> phone: +44 (0)1223 333000 (ask for pager 036)
|
