LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for PCCTG1 Archives


PCCTG1 Archives

PCCTG1 Archives


PCCTG1@LISTSERV.LOC.GOV


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

PCCTG1 Home

PCCTG1 Home

PCCTG1  October 2003

PCCTG1 October 2003

Subject:

Re: STOP: New version of draft

From:

"Lasater, Mary C" <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Fri, 17 Oct 2003 14:56:44 -0700

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (116 lines)

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 
recommendation?

    b.      That a letter announcing the new option of SACO 
Membership
be sent to all current SACO Participants to describe this 
opportunity and
invite those interested to apply.  Application would be a means for
libraries to make an official commitment to support and become 
fuller
partners in the SACO Program. The announcement should detail 
membership
responsibilities and benefits such as acceptance of policies as 
outlined in
the Subject Cataloging Manual, LCSH, LCC, and the SACO Contributors 
Manual;
contributing at least 5 subjects, classifications or changes to 
subjects or
classifications each year; special training opportunities and 
access to
documentation to be developed, and access to use of the utilities 
as a
mechanism of contribution and distribution for subjects. It should 
also
point out that those libraries not choosing to become SACO Members 
at this
time would continue to be appreciated as SACO Participants and be 
able to
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,
> Jimmie
>
> -----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
> report.
>
> 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
Vanderbilt University
Email: [log in to unmask]

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

May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
August 2019
July 2019
May 2019
April 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
October 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
December 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
June 2001
January 2001
December 2000
November 2000
October 2000
September 2000
July 2000

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.LOC.GOV

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager