Jimmie & All,
I am particularly concerned about the following recommendation. I
have previously stated that I did not want such a letter sent to my
library. What if we instead send a letter to libraries already
contributing 5 for the last few years (or lots more in the previous
year, which would include my library) as a de facto? We welcome
your past participation in SACO and welcome you as a full member of
the SACO program. These are the benefits you receive? In order to
maintain this status for another year ?
If a library contributed less than 5 we could send the letter about
the new option to join as a member. This ‘two letter approach’
would keep folks like me from having to justify something we are
already doing. Instead it would be a positive statement about the
work that we have been doing. We would get the prestige that is
mentioned without having to ‘decide’ on it.
I am also concerned about: “special training opportunities and
access to documentation to be developed”. I didn’t think I was
going to lose anything by not being a member but contributing
through a utility. The way this is written, it seems I will lose
access to training and documentation. Have we changed our
b. That a letter announcing the new option of SACO
be sent to all current SACO Participants to describe this
invite those interested to apply. Application would be a means for
libraries to make an official commitment to support and become
partners in the SACO Program. The announcement should detail
responsibilities and benefits such as acceptance of policies as
the Subject Cataloging Manual, LCSH, LCC, and the SACO Contributors
contributing at least 5 subjects, classifications or changes to
classifications each year; special training opportunities and
documentation to be developed, and access to use of the utilities
mechanism of contribution and distribution for subjects. It should
point out that those libraries not choosing to become SACO Members
time would continue to be appreciated as SACO Participants and be
contribute proposals as they have in the past.
--On Friday, October 17, 2003 2:30 PM -0400 Jimmie Lundgren
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Hi Mary Charles,
> Thank you for your comments.
> The current BIBCO training program does include a small
> section on proposing subject headings, but maybe that was not the
> case with your particular training.
> If there are some particular important points you would
> like to have inserted as minority opinions, would you please
> write them out and send them to us them so that we can decide as
> a group about including them? Thanks and best regards,
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lasater, Mary C [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Friday, October 17, 2003 4:07 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [PCCTG1] STOP: New version of draft
> Jimmie & All,
> I hope others with more "English" background will do more editing
> but I have a few spots for comments that will hopefully help the
> In the first paragraph:
>> Through SACO many useful changes and additions have been proposed
>> and adopted over this time, and the often-heard criticism that LC
>> is unresponsive to change can be answered.
> I am not sure that the criticism was LC... it was most often LCSH
> and sometimes LCC. For simplicity could we change this to "LC
> Subject Headings?
> Toward the end under training:
> The BIBCO training
>> program includes a session devoted to SACO that is very helpful,
>> and proposal-specific input from experts at LC is also extremely
>> valuable for building greater expertise in preparing subject
>> heading proposals.
> I don't remember any SACO training as part of our Bibco training.
> I have previously commented on the Day 5 training as part of the
> NACO program and how positively it has been received at the
> institutions that I have trained.
> As for the report, I've already made lots of comments, many of
> which were out of sync with these recommendations.
> Mary Charles
Mary Charles Lasater
Email: [log in to unmask]