Dear SACO Task Group,
I've been enoying your comments and I think we've been doing an
excellent job of bringing out the various benefits associated with SACO.
The second part of this two-week topic is responsibilities of SACO.
What are our duties as members of SACO and as contributors of headings? I
can think of a few of these riight off, and I bet you know a few more and
can help me to round out or better express some of these.
1. I feel in SACO we are responsible for identifying when a new
heading is needed and submitting it. Realistically, we don't always have
time to follow through on this, but I do think of it as a responsibility,
and regret the times I don't submit the heading. I know there are others who
probably need the same heading but who may not be in SACO.
2. We're responsible for understanding LCSH well enough to know how
the new heading should be structured to be as consistent as possible with
the decisions of CPSO and with other headings. Of course, this requires
training as well as experience and diligent study and application.
3. We're responsible for researching the subject and finding
sufficient documentation to justify the heading and properly relate it to
other terms if relevant. It is also good to be objective and unattached
about the choice of term. While I do my best to propose terms as I expect
them to be approved, I am generally almost as happy if one of my proposed
x-ref's is chosen as the term, as long as we get good access for the topic.
4. We're responsible for preparation and submission of the proposal
according to the established form and procedures (careful paperwork).
5. We're responsible for recognizing that there will sometimes be
delays in the handling of our proposals by coop staff due to other factors
in their schedules or the need to consult other subject experts. Speed of
subject approval has greatly improved with the use of the web form, etc.,
but high expectations regarding turnaround time don't really help in
6. We're responsible for trying to establish good working
relationships with our coop liaisons. I was fortunate in that my predecesor
had already established a good relationship with a member of the coop staff
who was unfailingly helpful, encouraging and wonderful to work with. When we
were shifted to other liaisons, they never quite lived up to his example,
but were still quite helpful and satisfactory.
Do you agree? What else? Thanks,