Dear SACO Task Group,
First of all I want to thank you all for your recent comments. We
are still in the mode of generating ideas and observations, and not yet
ready to say we've looked at all the considerations and know which way to
go. I haven't heard any bells. The Fenly report is there for us to use as
background along with the SACO manual and other sources including our own
experiences. It was not intended that it dictate our recommendations,
although I agree with Mary Charles that it includes helpful information.
About no.6, I want to point out that I said we were responsible for,
"trying to establish good working relationships." I still feel we are
responsible for trying although clearly it's not all up to us, and I'm not
actually sure we need to mention it explicitly on a final list of SACO
responsibilities. We will be discussing the Coop end of things later on.
I can identify with frustrations expressed regarding submissions
that have taken a long time or were not acted upon at all. There have been
instances when I had to revise or do additional research on a submission for
it to be approved, had them approved with unanticipated changes, and once I
was told that the heading would require too high a volume of maintenance and
would not be established. (At least I think that was the reason for "surface
water" not being approved).
When we submit a proposal that doesn't get approved as submitted I
feel it is our responsibility not to take it personally but to try to
understand and accept the decisions of CPSO and go on. Frankly, some
headings are tricky and the coop staff member may not always be able to
predict the decision and advise us before submission. Getting input through
the list sounds great to me. I think it is OK not to have a perfect
understanding before submission as long as we have provided good enough
documentation to present the issue for CPSO. Sometimes they have to argue
among themselves before reaching an editorial decision. If we submit one
that seems to get lost, we can review it and if we are convinced it is
needed and thoroughly documented we should resubmit it.
In a perfect world LC would be able to supply a very large and
well-trained staff to support SACO activities :-) I am hopeful that one of
the results of our work as a task group will be to help LC to better focus
those resources they have available for it at any given time towards optimum
support of the SACO program. If we can also present the value of SACO in a
persuasive manner thay may also be helpful.
For now I would like to ask that we try to refocus on the current
topic of SACO benefits and responsibilities and defer further comments and
analysis about LC's end of things for week 7 which is the time we assigned
Thanks and best regards,
From: Mary Charles Lasater [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Monday, March 24, 2003 4:01 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCTG1] SACO responsibilities list
Jimmie and All,
I agree with 1-4. I have already addressed Number 5 and 6 as problems for my
institution. Problems so bad that most of the catalogers don't propose
subjects at all so for Number 5: I think we need to establish what is
reasonable turn-around time for SACO. (I have had proposals go for as much
a year and disappear with little or no feedback). I think the expected
turn-around should be posted with the proposal forms on the Website and as
responsbilities or backlogs change the turn-around should too. I don't
that No. 6... the full responsibility for good relationships relies with the
participating libraries. Coop needs to take some responsibility too so I
think we should leave it out of membership "responsibilities" ... it sounds
too much like we must "obey" and that is not how I see the PCC.
>===== Original Message From Program for Cooperative Cataloging
<[log in to unmask]> =====
>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
>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
>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,