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:

Proportional 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:

Wed, 26 Mar 2003 08:17:14 +0000

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (46 lines)

Do I hear the sound of alarm bells ringing in the distance?

We seem to be uneasy with the idea of "minimum" levels of contribution, on
the grounds that
(a) the number of headings one might need to propose each year is erratic
(b) it would encourage "easy" proposals to meet targets
(c) there's no evidence been put forward of a correlation betweeen levels of
contribution and "accuracy" (for want of a better word)

And this week we seem to be uneasy about all those proposals which need
discussion (with either Coop or SACO) and which aren't, perhaps, suitable
for "direct" entry via a utility.

Is that too simplistic? Are these the exceptions, the wrinkles, in a
strategy which could otherwise work quite happily? If so, then I think we
have to look to accommodate them outside the "core" strategy and not get too
hung up on them as weaknesses in the strategy. But if NOT - i.e., these are
issues fundamental to the whole way in which we thing the program should be
set up and operate - then we're in danger of having to contradict the
recommendations of the LC consultant, which formed the background to our
brief.

At the heart of this is the fact that we've no idea *why* the consultant's
report, on which PoCo based its brief, came up with the recommendations it
did.

Sorry to digress a little from this week's thread, and I generally agree
with most of the comments made, but I'm slightly concerned that we seem to
be coming to conclusions which could be viewed as contradicting the
assumptions on which our brief was based (as you can tell, I'm choosing my
words with atypical care...).

These are early days, of course.

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