LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for PCCLIST Archives


PCCLIST Archives

PCCLIST Archives


PCCLIST@LISTSERV.LOC.GOV


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Monospaced Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

PCCLIST Home

PCCLIST Home

PCCLIST  August 2000

PCCLIST August 2000

Subject:

Re: BFMs

From:

Richard Amelung <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Program for Cooperative Cataloging <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Wed, 16 Aug 2000 08:42:43 -0500

Content-Type:

multipart/mixed

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (126 lines) , amelunrc.vcf (12 lines)

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)

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

June 2021
May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
January 2002
December 2001
November 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
July 2001
June 2001
May 2001
April 2001
March 2001
February 2001
January 2001
December 2000
November 2000
October 2000
September 2000
August 2000
July 2000
June 2000
May 2000
April 2000
March 2000
February 2000
January 2000
December 1999
November 1999
October 1999
September 1999
August 1999
July 1999
June 1999
May 1999
April 1999
March 1999
February 1999
January 1999
December 1998
November 1998
October 1998
September 1998
August 1998
July 1998
June 1998
May 1998
April 1998
March 1998
February 1998
January 1998
December 1997
November 1997
October 1997

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.LOC.GOV

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager