My sense is that people would like a means of submitting subject
proposals which is similar to the workflow of submitting names, yes?
They could be "submitted" to a review file (at least on OCLC), where
a co-op liaison could retrieve them and forward them to editorial.
I don't think anyone expects independent contribution to the
authority file, do they?
-Louise Ratliff, UCLA
On Mon, 29 Jan 2001 11:32:29 -0500 Ronald A Goudreau <[log in to unmask]>
> Surely it is understood here at LC that giving online access for
> creating subject proposals would be disastrous. We already encounter
> numerous irregularities in the local file as a result of catalogers
> inputting their records. The problem would only be exascerbated with
> outside libraries inputting directly. Is this really feasible?? Or
> is it just blue skying??
> >>> Antony Robert David Franks <[log in to unmask]> 01/29 10:56 AM >>>
> At the November PoCo meeting OCLC announced that plans were in high
> gear for moving to a relational database management system for
> WorldCat. As a result the PoCo asked that BIBCO and CONSER
> participants brainstrom and develop a "wish list" to be sent both
> OCLC and RLG. At the recent ALA conference the BIBCO-At-Large
> Jennifer Bowen led a "visioning exercise" designed to create the
> list" that BIBCO participants would like to see utilities provide.
> following list is given in order of priority, #1 being on top.
> 1. Authority validation (Linked authorities)
> 2. Record distribution, i.e., record sharing, between utilities
> 3. Batch overlay, i.e., tape loading ability that will overlay lower
> level records
> 4. Online SACO record contribution and ability to save SACO records
> in the utilities
> 5. BFM (Bibliographic file maintenance)
> 6. Numerical file sorting of Series numbering
> 7. Import capabilities directly into the utility from remote
> 8. Online classification record contribution
> During a discussion of these items at the PCC Participants Meeting
> later Sunday, others added
> 1. Better functionality from the fixed field coding in 007/008:
> a. codes should be searchable
> b. codes should trigger display constants
> 2. The ability to see all in process authority records in OCLC, as
> members can do in RLIN
> 3. Ability of RLIN members to do CONSER work
> 4. OCLC credits for BIBCO members who provide a classification
> to records that did not contain a number in that system
> 5. ISSN records available in the utility databases
> Full summaries of the BIBCO and CONSER meetings can be found on
> respective websites.
> Time is growing short for formulation of a final wish list to
> to OCLC. Feel free to present further thoughts for discussion on the
> matter to the list, or directly to me, at [log in to unmask]