With one exception I agree with all of Susan's comments - and am
particularly grateful that she remembered what a pain in the neck
diacritics currently are (not sure *how* I came to miss that myself!).

> 2. In the section Membership Benefits, in the paragraph starting
> "Utility-based submission.."
> Do you want to put in a mention that CPSO would retain final editorial
> review and would
> then produce the records in the utility? (I think it's good to emphasize
> this.)

I agree with the first half of this comment, but feel the workflow aspect
is too specific - I'd have expected CPSO would want these records, once
they've been signed off by the Member, to be worked on (by CPSO, and maybe
Coop - it doesn't matter) inside LC's Voyager system, rather than on the
relevant utility. In any case, it's a level of detail we don't need to go
into in our report, I feel. But the rest is all good to my eyes.

Sorry to make you folks feel envious - esp. Adam, way out on the west of my
map - but I'm done for this week, and am heading home. Have a good weekend,
all of you.

Best wishes,

Hugh
--
Hugh Taylor
Head, Collection Development and Description
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)

Susan Summer wrote:
>
> Jimmie and others:
>
> I have some comments on the draft sent out yesterday. Rather than
> interspersing
> them in the text, I'll note the places. I hope that's OK.
>
> Starting at the beginning--
>
> 1. In the paragraph starting "The mandate for this work..." where we talk
> about the
> Charles Fenly report, how about "which examined the SACO program workflow in
> some detail and outlined possible improvements."
>
> 2. In the section Membership Benefits, in the paragraph starting
> "Utility-based submission.."
> Do you want to put in a mention that CPSO would retain final editorial
> review and would
> then produce the records in the utility? (I think it's good to emphasize
> this.)
>
> 3. In the section Web-based training - we mention that this could
> incorporate some of the
> materials developed for the in-person workshops and some of the material
> from the SACO
> Participants' Manual. I would also add that the web-based training could
> incorporate some
> of the valuable material already on the PCC SACO webpage, such as the FAQ
> and the list
> of web resources, etc.
>
> 4. In the next session, Processes -- Where we have some of the drawbacks
> listed ("It does not
> permit saving..."), I would also add that it requires diacritics to be
> written out such as [acute].
> And then later in that paragraph, being able to enter diacritics should be
> listed as an advantage
> of utility-based submission.
>
> 5. And don't you want Jimmie Lundgren, University of Florida, Chair to be
> the first name on
> the list?!
>
> (I'll be out of the office Oct. 20-23 but will try to check email if possible.)
>
> Susan
>
> At 12:57 PM 10/16/2003 -0400, you wrote:
> >Dear SACO Task Group,
> > If you haven't had time to review my previous messages yet, please
> >toss them out and respond to the draft below. It is continuing to evolve
> >with your help, and I hope to hear something from each of you in the near
> >future so that we may still meet the deadline. Especially, please tell me if
> >there are parts of the charge the report fails to address or if you disagree
> >with anything or feel we can express it in a better way. I really hate
> >criticism, but I much prefer that it happen before we send it as a final
> >report and we have to live with it forever :-)
> > Thanks and best regards,