Returning to the original issue, well summarized by Adam:
"This issue of headings on PCC records not being in synch with the
authority files has been raised a number of times at the BIBCO
Operations Committee, but the participants could not agree on a means
to solve the problem. Most administrators will not support the
additional step of reporting BFM needed to the utilities. What this
means is that you can only infer that the headings on a record labeled
PCC or some other symbol to indicate the headings are established)
were correct AT THE TIME the record was coded PCC."
First a question, directed to CPSO I assume:
In the LC's new ILS environment, where, for example, not all CONSER
records are included in LC's ILS, will a report from a NACO member
that BFM is required generate changes to all the following: LC
database records, all CONSER records, and all BIBCO records?
Then, a comment on the BFM reporting process:
I may be guilty of over-simplifying, but I am wondering why a single
report of BFM maintenance could not be simultaneously transmitted to
all three parties, LC, OCLC, and RLIN? Could not a form posted at one
site (or perhaps at all three sites) be set up to transmit the same
message to each of the three bodies?
How OCLC and RLIN might respond to a probable increased volume of these
messages would be another question. And, LC and OCLC/RLIN might have
to agree on the division of responsibility for corrections to
BIBCO/CONSER records. But surely we do not have to give up on the
idea of having our bib. records and our authority records in synch.,
as some have seemingly suggested.
David Van Hoy, Principal
[log in to unmask]