LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for PCCLIST Archives


PCCLIST Archives

PCCLIST Archives


[email protected]


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

PCCLIST Home

PCCLIST Home

PCCLIST  July 2003

PCCLIST July 2003

Subject:

Re: Classification on Receipt at Cornell

From:

Katherine Kott <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Fri, 25 Jul 2003 10:20:24 -0700

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (162 lines)

Celine,

Stanford also remains dedicated to collaboration through the PCC both by
creating original records and upgrading existing records. A fundamental
part of our process is sending the material that does not have copy when
received to original catalogers for evaluation first. The original
catalogers use their professional judgement to skim off the material that
is highest priority for their time and skills, based on Stanford collection
priorities and commitments to cooperative programs. Only after the original
catalogers have done their culling does the remaining material move on for
classification, shelving and cycling for copy.

We also contribute to the PCC through training and committee activities. As
you point out, if no one is paying attention to the commonweal, we all suffer.

Katherine

At 09:23 AM 7/25/2003 -0400, David N Banush wrote:
>Celine, et al.:
>
>Cornell's commitment to the PCC remains strong. For years, we have been a
>top producer of program records, and our staff have long been active as
>trainers and standing committee members and chairs. We continue to
>contribute BIBCO records, particularly in our areas of unique strength
>(e.g., Southeast Asian vernacular materials.) During the initial phase-in
>of our classification-on-receipt workflow, the number of our BIBCO
>contributions has diminished. However, we expect this to be temporary.
>When our our backlog is eliminated, we anticipate contributions will rise
>again. We are on track for that to happen by the end of 2004.
>
>David
>
> > Thanks to Katherine for the reference to that article by David Levy--it
> > was excellent. I also think dynamic records will be a big part of the
> > future--we're already seeing it with frequent name changes for Internet
> > resources.
> >
> > But, just a comment on an earlier poster's remark that this process used
> > at Stanford and Cornell might become a model for other libraries: would
> > this process really work if all libraries did it? I think the answer
> > would have to be "no." Otherwise, who would be producing the upgraded
> > records that this process relies so heavily upon? And what does all
> > this mean for PCC? Will Stanford and Cornell no longer be contributing
> > BIBCO records?
> >
> > Celine Noel
> > UNC-Chapel Hill
> > [log in to unmask]
> >
> >
> >
> > Katherine Kott wrote:
> >
> >> Hi all,
> >>
> >> As a recent heir(ess) to the process at Stanford that can perhaps be
> >> given partial credit for spawning COR at Cornell, I have a few
> >> observations to add to the mix:
> >>
> >> * Technology (automated copy matching) has made it possible to
> >> shift the process of searching for copy from the front end to the
> >> back end so those things we would have cycled for copy because we
> >> didn't have time for original cataloging are accessible while
> >> copy is being sought. Why not put them out instead of keeping
> >> them in?
> >> * The batch processes we now rely upon do require changes to the
> >> processes of adding records to utilities and enhancing records.
> >> As Mary Charles observed, that original records are not being
> >> batch loaded into OCLC is a problem but is bound to be a
> >> temporary wrinkle.
> >> * Classing and shelf listing material does make it more accessible
> >> than it is in an un-classed backlog, not just because it is on
> >> open shelves. Perhaps a reminder that class is not just a
> >> shelving location is too obvious.
> >> * Perhaps "full treatment" should be the goal, but processes like
> >> the ones that have been thoughtfully developed at Cornell and
> >> Stanford have value in the real world. Take a look at some of the
> >> treatment the older material in your collections got before the
> >> days of cooperative cataloging. Are we really doing so much worse
> >> today than we did then given the tools we now have for access?
> >>
> >> I like Daniel's observation that one person's full may be another
> >> person's minimal and the idea of a dynamic record. One of my favorite
> >> (fairly) recent think pieces, although focused on the application of
> >> cataloging to digital material, does a wonderful job of stepping back
> >> to look at what it is we are doing when we engage in this activity we
> >> call cataloging. It is Cataloging in the Digital Order by David Levy
> >> and can be found at: http://csdl.tamu.edu/DL95/papers/levy/levy.html
> >>
> >> Perhaps the overarching process is the exchange between collection
> >> development and cataloging, keeping in mind resource realities and
> >> making the best possible decisions about levels of treatment for the
> >> material, actual and virtual that we decide to add to our collections,
> >> represent to the world and share with each other through some level of
> >> "order making".
> >>
> >> Katherine
> >>
> >> At 02:34 PM 7/22/2003 -0400, Ana Lupe Cristan wrote:
> >>
> >>> Forwarding for Daniel CannCasciato
> >>> **********************************
> >>> Hi David,
> >>>
> >>> >> but I don't agree with him about the elimination of our
> >>> >>backlog being a matter of mere semantics.
> >>>
> >>> I was unclear in my statement. It's not so much the semantics, I
> >>> guess, that I disagree with (not at all vehemently) as it is
> >>> the implication that can be made when we (as a cataloging community)
> >>>
> >>> say that a level X (3, 4, K, etc.) record is good enough.
> >>>
> >>> I like the idea of the dynamic record (of all types, bib, name,
> >>> subject, etc.) and think that concept should be
> >>> mentioned often in these types of discussions. Keep in mind that
> >>> from my perspective, full level records are really only minimal
> >>> full-level records. That is, enhancements to them need to occur when
> >>> appropriate, whether it's TOC data or additional subjects or a fuller
> >>> description at some point.
> >>>
> >>> I apologize if my negative comment came through stronger than my
> >>> positive ones. I really do think the workflow is a good one for
> >>> Cornell and likely is something of model (or will be) for many
> >>> other libraries.
> >>>
> >>> Daniel
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> -------------
> >>> Daniel CannCasciato
> >>> Head of Cataloging
> >>> CWU Library
> >>> Ellensburg, WA 98926
> >>> [log in to unmask]
> >>>
> >>> For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat,
> >>>
> >>> and wrong.
> >>> -- H. L. Mencken
> >>
> >> Katherine Kott
> >> Head of Cataloging and Metadata Services
> >> Meyer Library
> >> Stanford University
> >> Stanford CA 94305
> >> phone: (650) 723-2454
> >> fax: (650) 725-1120
> >> email: [log in to unmask]
>
>
>--
>David Banush
>Head, Bibliographic Control Services
>Central Technical Services
>Cornell University Library
>110D Olin Library
>Ithaca, NY 14853
>
>Voice: 607-254-8031
>Fax: 607-255-6110

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

March 2024
February 2024
January 2024
December 2023
November 2023
October 2023
September 2023
August 2023
July 2023
June 2023
May 2023
April 2023
March 2023
February 2023
January 2023
December 2022
November 2022
October 2022
September 2022
August 2022
July 2022
June 2022
May 2022
April 2022
March 2022
February 2022
January 2022
December 2021
November 2021
October 2021
September 2021
August 2021
July 2021
June 2021
May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
January 2002
December 2001
November 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
July 2001
June 2001
May 2001
April 2001
March 2001
February 2001
January 2001
December 2000
November 2000
October 2000
September 2000
August 2000
July 2000
June 2000
May 2000
April 2000
March 2000
February 2000
January 2000
December 1999
November 1999
October 1999
September 1999
August 1999
July 1999
June 1999
May 1999
April 1999
March 1999
February 1999
January 1999
December 1998
November 1998
October 1998
September 1998
August 1998
July 1998
June 1998
May 1998
April 1998
March 1998
February 1998
January 1998
December 1997
November 1997
October 1997

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.LOC.GOV

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager