Dear SACO Task Group,
Since I knew I would be too preoccupied to take good notes during my
report at BIBCO OpCo, I requested that the person sitting next to me share
her notes with us. Very fortunately, that person was Rebecca Malek-Wiley of
Tulane and I will paste below the notes she has sent me.
PCC Task Group on SACO Program Development - 1 May
Report by Jimmie Lundgren, University of Florida
[in these notes, bracketed notes marked "later" were from things said
informally after the meeting]
Task group has established schedule for discussion. So far, have discussed:
1. Criteria for membership
3. Mechanisms for contribution
Then will discuss:
Then will attempt to stitch together useful proposals.
Have agreed that some mechanism must be retained so that non-members can
continue to contribute. The thought of quotas is not dear to us, but we
have not ruled it out. [later: people have told them that if quota were
20, they would not meet it]. Also mindful of burden on PCC staff.
One very appealing idea: use utilities as a mechanism for submission, along
with existing methods. Would make possible saving, checking, tweaking,
revising - before submit to LC. [later comment by Rebecca: also would
facilitate inclusion of diacritics and special characters]
How many people have personally proposed LCSH?
[about 10 people raised their hands]
Those who didn't: what stopped you?
It takes too long (clarified: takes too long for the
heading to be established after it has been submitted)
Led to discussion:
John Mitchell: Actually takes 3-4 weeks at most (Ana
Cristán: we still tell people to allow 6 weeks); and is available as a
proposed heading by the end of the same day, overnight, or by 2nd day.
Jimmie L.: If you don't propose it, it takes even longer
(waiting for some one else to do so)
Ana C.: But there is still the perception that it takes too
long; the PR is not getting out
Jimmie L.: Some may think that takes too long to prepare?
If you mean that, the tool of using the utilities could
Sherman Clarke: My early perception was that for some
proposals, it takes too long to gather the information; but wide variation -
straightforward ones are easy, e.g., <topic> in art
Jimmie L.: Geographic headings: if it is in GNIS, can be
really quick; if not, can take a long time
If you have submitted a proposal: What things about the SACO process helped
(though later during the meeting some limitations were
referred to: cannot freeze a draft, get back to it; may end up doing a lot
Workshops - training
1 example: Bill Garrison provided detailed examples of how
Univ. of Colorado goes through the process, fills out form, proposes
Anthony Franks: Authority macros - LC has templates
in-house; macros could at least give you bare-bones authority record if you
submit proposal through utilities.
Jimmie L.: We haven't discussed specific macros, since we
all have different systems. At Univ. of Florida, the local NOTIS system can
create local authority records [later: using CLARR], but we can't export,
Using the utilities
[later: Jimmie L.: We have had really good response from
John Mitchell: It could reduce fear of submitting directly
to LC, thinking that the record always needs to be perfect, if people could
submit to a utility as an intermediary, and could go back and revise