Most of the draft looks good to me. A few points:
1) we haven't said anything about the classification side of SACO. In the
first paragraph we should note that SACO also provides the opportunity to
propose new and changed LCC. Nothing about LCC is said in section b) of
the summary either - would classification proposals count equally in the
number of proposals required to be a Member? Are we saying that
Membership is limited to those who commit to doing only subject proposals?
What if an institution doesn't do a lot of subject proposals, but does a
lot of classification proposals?
Now that I've raised the question, my feeling is that the requirement
should be a total of 5 proposals, whether these be for subjects or
classes. What do the others of you think?
Also I think we should put something in the report about streamlining the
classification proposal process - right now that MUST be faxed or mailed
or emailed to LC (regarding emailing, I've created an image file of the
proposal form and then one can use graphic file editing software to
"write" on it, save it as a new file, and then email it to LC as an
attachment, which they can then open and print out). But there is no
current option of using a Web form to submit classification proposals like
there is for subjects. Perhaps we should encourage Coop Cat to try to
develop one? Also, ultimately, the entire LC classification is encoded in
MARC 21 - perhaps there is a way for participants to create MARC
classification records that could be submitted through the utilities like
we want to do with subjects? Too farfetched? At the very least we could
ask Coop and LC to investigate if this would be desirable and possible at
some point and what it would take to accomplish?
Other comments on the draft:
Summary a) - nothing is said about using email as a form of submitting
proposals. This is done now by some participants I suspect (I used to do
it this way before the Web form became available - you could save
incomplete proposals as draft emails, which you can't currently do with
the Web form, and other catalogers could send proposals to me to review,
and then I could edit and forward to Coop). Should we continue to permit
this method (even if it is discouraged in favor of the Web form)? If so
we should probably say something about it in the report. Perhaps Ana
Cristan could let us know if email proposals still come in anymore.
I think the use of "safety" in this paragraph could be confusing. It's
not that using mail is unsafe, it's just that since the anthrax episodes,
LC's mail gets screened offsite and takes a long time to reach its final
destination and sometimes it gets damaged/destroyed during the screening.
There's probably a better way of explaining that mail is discouraged than
saying "for reasons of safety." I think the key thing here is that there
are unacceptable delays in delivery of mail and once it gets there, since
it's in paper form, it still has to be rekeyed by someone in Coop. Cat.
into their online system for the proposal to actual move forward.
section b) change Contributors to Participants'; in the last sentence,
lowercase "Participants" since this isn't a formal category
section e) change Training Committee to Standing Committee on Training
My 3.25 cents!
* Adam L. Schiff *
* Principal Cataloger *
* University of Washington Libraries *
* Box 352900 *
* Seattle, WA 98195-2900 *
* (206) 543-8409 *
* (206) 685-8782 fax *
* [log in to unmask] *