I am chiming in on this a bit late because I have just switched jobs and
this is only Day Two at my new institution. I have moved from a library
which contributed to all PCC programs to a library which
currently contributes to NACO, SACO, and CONSER but has not yet been
trained to contribute BIBCO records. Getting us training in BIBCO and
having us become BIBCO participants is both my personal and an
institutional goal for this year.
I agree with Joan's assessment. As an individual trained in NACO and
BIBCO, a cataloging manager, and Chair of the PCC Standing Committee on
Training, I am far more comfortable with the idea of using the funnel
model for NACO contributions than I am for BIBCO contributions. Both
require an institutional commitment but I think that BIBCO
requires a much stronger institutional commitment. BIBCO, particularly
Core, requires a buy-in to a new approach to cataloging. An individual
cannot be committed to the BIBCO principles effectively if his institution
is not supportive, in my opinion. All of us first work for the institution
that pays our salary and must satisfy local priorities first.
Carol Hixson
Head, Catalog Department
University of Oregon
On Tue, 25 Jan 2000, Joan Swanekamp wrote:
> I too would like to chime in on 'independent' BIBCO participation. I am
> comfortable of the idea of independent NACO participation through some sort
> of funnel. But, I do think that administrative support must be a
> requirement. Each institution has its own priorities and activities or
> functions it values. If PCC came to be viewed has somehow circumventing
> institutional priorities, we would be doing a great disservice to the
> Program. I would hope that a new PCC catalog librarian at a non-PCC
> library would instead provide the opportunity to recruit a new library.
>
> I am not comfortable with the notion in independent BIBCO participation.
> This clearly requires an institutional commitment both to the core
> standard, to training, and ongoing support for record contribution.
>
> /Joan Swanekamp
>
> At 04:22 PM 1/20/00 -0500, you wrote:
> >I agree with John Schalow. Even with trained catalogers, accuracy is
> >often a problem. Also within an institution, it is much easier to
> >communicate with one another on changes and updates in practices.
> >
> >Accountability for NACO records is very important. I can see the
> >possibility of independent BIBCO participants without involvement in
> >creation of new NACO records - I guess this will have problem in
> >authorization.
> >
> >Margaret Shen
> >
> >
> >js368 wrote:
> >>
> >> Dear Ana and others:
> >> The advantage of what we are doing now is that there is accountability at
> >> an institutional level. I recently received an error report from OCLC
> >> about a PCC record we had input where another institution was requesting
> >> several rather substantive changes. OCLC wanted us to check the book and we
> >> did and the result was corrections to the record (hate to admit this!). But
> >> the system works!! If we adopt a model which includes independent
> >> catalogers (maybe by applying the funnel project model), we still need to
> >> maintain accountability and a contact person who will take responsibility
> >> for resolving problems and evaluating whether additional training is
> >> needed. -John Schalow
> >>
> >> >Dear Kate, et al.
> >> > Traditionally NACO participation has been institution based because
> >> >of the commitment to the initial 5-day training and because LC provides
> >> >free documentation to NACO institutions to assure compliance with the
> >> >most current policies and procedures (MARC 21 format and all updates,
> >> >(including the DCM Z1 yellow pages--which are not available from CDS)
> >> >and the LCRIs and its updates).
> >> > Perhaps rather than individual membership the model to be followed
> >> >here should be a Funnel project. Some of the Funnel Projects are
> >> >comprised of single individuals from institutions, usually from a
> >> >specialized branch library, where the general library may not belong to
> >> >NACO. Perhaps Bob (or Norine) would like to consider becoming the
> >> >Funnel Coordinator for a General NACO Funnel Project (GenNACO??).
> >> > At ALA we heard from a retired NACO cataloger who is now working
> >> >free-lance and from an active cataloger who moved from a NACO to a
> >> >non-NACO institution both expressing the desire to continue NACO
> >> >participation.
> >> > We'd be interested in hearing more discussion on this before taking
> >> >the question of individual PCC membership to the PoCo for consideration.
> >> >
> >> >Ana Cristan
> >> >Cooperative Cataloging Team
> >> >Library of Congress
> >> >e-mail: [log in to unmask]
> >> >phone: 202.707.7921
> >> >fax: 202.707.2824
> >> >
> >> >Kate Harcourt wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> I think it is a good idea. My only question/concern would be one of
> >> >> logistics. The new institution may not be an OCLC enhance library, thus
> >> >> limiting participation. Also some of us might question the pcc marker in
> >> >> a record that does not have a participating library MARC21 symbol in the
> >> >> 040.
> >> >>
> >> >> Kate
> >> >>
> >> >> On Wed, 19 Jan 2000, Vicenti, Norine Isidora wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> > That would be a good idea. What if a former institutional cataloger
> >> became
> >> >> > an independent cataloger? If that person has present NACO contributing
> >> >> > status, why not continue that status as a stand-alone if so desired.?
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Thanks Robert for the suggestion.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Norine Vicenti (BYU alumni)
> >> >> > Joint Bank-Fund Libary
> >> >> >
> >> >> > > -----Original Message-----
> >> >> > > From: Robert Maxwell
> >> >> > > Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2000 7:03 PM
> >> >> > > To: [log in to unmask]
> >> >> > > Subject: "Independent" pcc members
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > PCC members:
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > I was struck at Midwinter by the number of my cataloging colleagues
> >who
> >> >> > > have become what I will call "PCC orphans" by changing jobs, becoming
> >> >> > > employed by a library that is not an institutional NACO/BIBCO
> >member. I
> >> >> > > think as the years pass the number of such catalogers will grow. It
> >> seems
> >> >> > > to me we are losing a rich resource by abandoning these experienced
> >PCC
> >> >> > > catalogers, many of whom would like to continue contributing.
> Would it
> >> be
> >> >> > > possible to establish a category of "independent" or "personal"
> >> membership
> >> >> > > that would allow those who have been contributors to the program at
> >> their
> >> >> > > original institution continue to contribute even if their current
> >> >> > > institution does not participate?
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > Bob Maxwell
> >> >> > > =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
> >> >> > > Robert L. Maxwell
> >> >> > > Special Collections and Ancient Languages Cataloger
> >> >> > > 6428 Harold B. Lee Library
> >> >> > > Brigham Young University
> >> >> > > Provo, UT 84602
> >> >> > > (801) 378-5568
> >> >> > > [log in to unmask]
> >> >> > > =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
> >> >> >
> >>
> >> John Schalow, Head, Cataloging Dept., McKeldin Library
> >> University of Maryland, College Park, MD., 20742
> >> Email:[log in to unmask]
> >> Phone: 301-405-9320 Fax: 301-314-9971
> >
> >--
> >************************************************************************
> > Margaret Shen
> > Head, Catalog Dept. email: [log in to unmask]
> > Cleveland Public Library voice: (216) 623-2886
> > 17133 Lake Shore Blvd. fax: (216) 623-6980
> > Cleveland, OH 44110
> >************************************************************************
>
|