This is great. Thanks.
At 09:11 AM 10/4/01 -0400, you wrote:
>I know you've compiled your results, but it sounds like you'll still be
>able to factor straggling data in, so I hope this info will help.
>1) Cornell does have high-level paraprofessionals with language and/or
>subject expertise doing BIBCO cataloging. In Central Technical Services,
>our largest processing unit, there are 8.5 FTE paraprofessional original
>catalogers, and 7.5 FTE academic staff original catalogers.
>2) We do in-house training and send staff to outside training sessions,
>depending on availability and need. We have a BIBCO and a NACO trainer on
>staff, so that helps.
>Thanks for pulling this information together.
>At 03:25 PM 10/1/01 -0700, you wrote:
>>I have two questions that I would like to have input on from other
>>1) How many of you have paraprofessional catalogers doing some of
>>your BIBCO cataloging?
>>(Lest anyone think that I have an axe to grind about this, one way or the
>>other, let me just state: I think this is an institutional decision that
>>on a lot of factors. It is not something that I think the PCC should be
>>to "legislate" in any way. I am simply trying to get a sense of what
>>current reality is for BIBCO libraries.)
>>2) If you do have paraprofessionals doing BIBCO cataloging, do you
>>rely on in-house training for MARC, AACR2, subject analysis, and
>>classification? Or do you send staff to training sessions provided by
>>I have personal knowledge of BIBCO workflows at four different libraries,
>>all of which have paraprofessionals contributing BIBCO records. In my own
>>library, all of our high level paraprofessional catalogers contribute BIBCO
>>records, both full and core, original and upgraded. The training that they
>>have received in general cataloging concepts and tools has largely been
>>provided in house.
>>Head, Catalog Dept.
>>University of Oregon
>Head of Cataloging
>Central Technical Services
>Cornell University Library
>110D Olin Library
>Ithaca, NY 14853
>[log in to unmask]