LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for PCCTG1 Archives


PCCTG1 Archives

PCCTG1 Archives


PCCTG1@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

PCCTG1 Home

PCCTG1 Home

PCCTG1  March 2003

PCCTG1 March 2003

Subject:

Re: SACO responsibilities list

From:

Hugh Taylor <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Tue, 25 Mar 2003 17:42:44 +0000

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (82 lines)

Mary Charles noted:

> BUT AS A SACO participant I think it is my responsibility to notify
> LC when I encounter this type of challenge.

With which I'd agree. But none of the PCC programs *prevents* members
shirking a challenge. There are subject proposals that we've simply shied
away from spending time on - we couldn't have done a "good" job without
finding more time that we could spare at the time. And the same goes for
name headings on occasion. So whilst I agree it's a reponsibility to try to
"notify" LC when such challenges, I don't think it can be regarded as a
"breach" to fail to do the necessary work oneself. Clearly the significance
of this is partly ties up with the method of contribution/reporting - if
we're in a "dialogue" sort of situation then the participant can bring ideas
and questions without having all of the answers. If we're looking to "direct
contribution" it has to be "all or nothing", just as it is with NACO (i.e.
there may be scope for some behind-the-scenes dialogue, but ultimately it's
the participant who has to get on and do it - or not).

> I am not sure that having to prepare a form is really the best way of
> approaching the problem.

That's a good point that we'll need to bear in mind for future weeks. If we
look at some sort of "direct" input of SACO proposals, what about "change
requests"? Some of these may be suitable for a "direct" approach, but the
sort of thing Mary Charles describes is better with non-formal reporting and
discussion.

> "Psychology" ended up being changed to Body language. I didn't
> propose the heading change... I just presented the problem.

And whilst I'm sure Mary Charles, like the rest of us, took that particular
task as far as she felt able, is that the point where the "formal"
"participant-based" approach becomes the less formal "this program is open
to anyone with something to contribute" sort of thing. Anyone should be able
to tackle CPSO on issues without having answers, but should it be a
participant's responsibility to try to deal with as much as possible
themselves?

I suspect there's going to be a "grey area" (do you folk spell that "gray"?)
where, as described, some issues require a good bit of discussion, and the
actual resolution is only a small part of the overall process.

> So how do the rest of you feel about our responsibility to report
> LCSH problems? Is it a responsibility and an eventual benefit of
> SACO? Or should we leave it up to AUTOCAT to notify LC? Is
> there some mechanism for giving us credit for the work we do? Or
> does it matter? Can we report problems without providing the
> answer, since the answer (heading) may change anyway?

Taking the first question mark as #0 -

#1. Yes

#2. As an alternative avenue for non-members that's probably always going to
be needed

#3. If I'm guessing correctly that "changed NARs" is derived from 040 $d,
then I don't see why, even if CPSO or Coop were the people actually keying
the changes, your local institution code couldn't be used in the 040 - this
wouldn't be based on a strict scientific assessment of the percentage of
your time versus LC's that went into the record, but simply a (subjective)
recognition of how much the SACO participant had contributed. LC staff have
their own codes in 9XX fields, I think (certainly do in bibs and NARs), so
they can probably get their personal "credit" some other way.

#4. I'd suggest this lies outside SACO as part of a stream that implies less
commitment to the outcome on anyone's part, either the proposer or LC. But
others may disagree.

Regards,

Hugh
--
Hugh Taylor
Head of Cataloguing, Cambridge University Library
West Road, Cambridge CB3 9DR, England

email: [log in to unmask] fax: +44 (0)1223 333160
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

August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
August 2019
July 2019
May 2019
April 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
October 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
December 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
June 2001
January 2001
December 2000
November 2000
October 2000
September 2000
July 2000

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.LOC.GOV

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager