LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for PCCLIST Archives


PCCLIST Archives

PCCLIST Archives


PCCLIST@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

PCCLIST Home

PCCLIST Home

PCCLIST  November 2003

PCCLIST November 2003

Subject:

Re: Revisions to BL Contributed Headings

From:

Mike Tribby <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Mon, 17 Nov 2003 10:38:31 -0600

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (231 lines)

Anthony;


As I mentioned before, I'm aware of the policies as delineated in the
documentation, so these issues do not "come upon [me] as a surprise."  My
questions concern the implications of these policies, mainly: are our
changes to BL-contributed NARs conditional pending BL approval, and, if the
BL doesn't accept them, how are we to find this out?

And, yes, I know OCLC has a notification system, but being a vendor, we're
presently precluded from having access to OCLC's bibliographic database.
Our univese is defined for purposes of our NACO participation as our
database plus LC's.  This is why we report BFM to LC but not OCLC, or, for
that matter, RLIN--even though we are a member of RLIN (where we are also
precluded from contributing to or downloading from their bibliographic
database), although we would be happy to do so.

For us it's not so much a matter of the BL being "difficult about revisions
to headings" or not.  It's a matter of timing.  Often our cataloging is done
pending orders for specific titles with specific delivery dates.  Since
we're a vendor, we're precluded from access to the BL bibliographic database
even when it is usually included in the cataloging software package we buy
(ITS from TLC--we can't access the BL or the collected video records
database (controlled by Baker & Taylor) usually included in the ITS
package--because we're a vendor).  Therefore, we can contribute to the BL's
operations by contributing NARs, and we're happy to do so, but they don't
have to reciprocate and, in fact, don't allow us to see what they're doing.



Mike Tribby
Senior Cataloger
Quality Books Inc.
The Best of America's Independent Presses

mailto:[log in to unmask]



-----Original Message-----
From: Antony Robert David Franks [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Monday, November 17, 2003 9:54 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Revisions to BL Contributed Headings


Dear Mike,

OCLC does maintain a notification system for catalogers to inform them of
the need to revise bibliographic records in WorldCat.

These things have long been clearly defined in the documentation; I am sorry
that they have come upon you as a surprise. In general, I have not found the
BL to be difficult about revisions to headings--they simply need to know
that a heading has been changed, in order to do maintenance at their end. On
rare occasions, due to fuller information at their end, they have further
revised a heading in order to break conflicts.

The remainder of your questions, I think, is appropriate to the tenor of
much PCC discussion I have heard during meetings: what is membership? Who
are members? What are we trying to do, and how are we trying to do it? We
have had so much growth in the past ten years, that we may need some
clarification on just what we thought we were doing. And what we are doing.

Anthony

>>> [log in to unmask] 11/17/03 09:35AM >>>
Anthony;

Thanks for your detailed reply.  As you said, there were several issues
raised in my terse email.  However:

I don't question the longstanding nature of the provision we are discussing.
In our case we have had very few occasions to alter BL contributed name
headings.  Still, I feel that it would not be unreasonable to know if we are
expected to hold onto changes made in BL-contributed NARs while the BL
considers the proposed change.  So I ask again (in slightly different form),
are we notifying them of a change or proposing a change that they can then
accept or reject?  BTW--I'm quite impressed with the number of NARs the BL
contributes, however, we contribute quite a few NARs, too.  This, too, is
"all done gratis, without regard for [QBI's] past practice of charging for
[cataloging] data as part of their self-support."

As to the practice of printing or not printing BL CIP in books, I have
personally heard BL representatives say that their CIP is often not printed
in their books because to them CIP means "Cataloging In the process of
Publication."  Fine, so call it "CITOPP," then.  Also, as a matter of
access, this note "A cataloguing record is available for this item from the
British Library" does me no good as we are denied access to the BL database,
unlike the LC database which is open to one and all.

As to the desirability of informing the BL about changes in NARs in order
"to keep its bibliographic databases in synch with the authority file, in a
similar manner to that achieved by BFM notification to LC," then why not
also notify OCLC and RLIN (to name just two proprietors of large
bibliographic databases)?  One reason might be that individual NACO members
may not have access to those bibliographic databases--just like with the BL.


Mike Tribby
Senior Cataloger
Quality Books Inc.
The Best of America's Independent Presses

mailto:[log in to unmask]



-----Original Message-----
From: Antony Robert David Franks [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Friday, November 14, 2003 12:14 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Revisions to BL Contributed Headings


Mike,

There are several different issues in your single e-mail. I will try to
answer as best I can, what I can.

The injunction to notify the British Library of revisions to headings
contributed by them the the NACO authority file is a long-standing one. It
has been in the documentation at least since 1996,with the signing of the
Cataloguing Policy Convergence Agreement. At that time, it was hoped that
the BLNAL would be gradually superseded by the equivalent heading in the
NACO authority file.

This procedure allows the British Library not only to further that goal, but
to keep its bibliographic databases in synch with the authority file, in a
similar manner to that achieved by BFM notification to LC.

It is all the more important at this time, as they are in the process of
data migration to their new system.

As for the contributions of the British Library in return for this
consideration: They are the largest single contributor to NACO. In FY2003
they contributed 19,460 new name authority records for the use of all, and
revised 11,118 existing records--for the most part, by breaking out unique
headings from undifferentiated NARs. By my desk-top tables, their
contributions of new name authority records total 75,486 over the past ten
years, with over 35,000 revisions to extisting authority records. In subject
matters, over two thousand new subject headings and an impressive amount of
revision work since that time.

This is all done gratis, without regard for their past practice of charging
for this data as part of their self-support.

The matter of CIP data, however, is another matter. It is handled by a
separate workflow. A contractor with headquarters in Scotland deals with
bibliographic data and the Boston Spa BL staff handle the authority work.
From my knowledge of internal workflow there, I do know that the BL
cataloguing staff aims for a 24 hour turnover in corrections. They are not,
unfortunately, also responsible for the re-distribtuion of that data, which
rests in other hands.

As for printing the CIP data in the books, that, I realized some time ago is
entirely in the hands of the *publishers*. There is nothing that LC or the
BL can do to force UK publishers into printing our data in their volumes,
and, in an amazingly large number of cases, they do not. At best, one will
find the notification that "A cataloguing record is available for this item
from the British Library [or the Library of Congress]"

Anthony

Anthony R.D. Franks
Cooperative Cataloging Program Specialist
Library of Congress
202-707-2822 (voice)
202-252-2082 (fax)

>>> [log in to unmask] 11/13/03 05:11PM >>>
Anthony;

Sorry for the blank message I sent you a moment ago.  It's late and
MSOutlook frequently gets the better of me late in the day.

As to your reminder about notifying the British Library when changing a BL
heading in a name authority record, might I ask why we are expected to do
this when they are not expected to reciprocate?  My job would be made a lot
easier if the British Library were a little more cooperative--for instance
printing Cataloging IN Publication IN the book--so I'm moved to ask the
impolitic question above. Even making their catalog available for easy
perusal would help.

Also, the directive instructs us to notify them *prior* to making the
change.  Is my cataloging then supposed to sit around the office gathering
electronic moss while they decide whether or not the change can be made?  In
other words, am I seeking their permission or just notifying them?

Your guidance on these matters would be very much appreciated.


Mike Tribby
Senior Cataloger
Quality Books Inc.
The Best of America's Independent Presses

mailto:[log in to unmask]



-----Original Message-----
From: Antony Robert David Franks [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2003 6:27 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Revisions to BL Contributed Headings


At the request of the British Library, the Coop Team reminds NACO members to
please adhere to the section of Z1 (the yellow pages), 1XX, p. 1, relating
to revision of name authority records contributed by the British Library. In
short, please remember to inform the British Library, through the e-mail
address listed [log in to unmask], of changes made to headings (1XXs
only)
contributed by the BL (040 $a Uk $b eng $c Uk)

The British Library are currently in the process of data migration
preparatory to the implementation of their new system. At the same time,
they are delinking their catalogue from the BLNAL and testing linkage with
the NACO Authority File.

Failure by NACO members to follow the procedures outlined in Z1 (the yellow
pages)  make these actions on the part of the BL even more difficult than
can be exected of a "normal" implementation.

Anthony R.D. Franks
Cooperative Cataloging Program Specialist
Library of Congress
202-707-2822 (voice)
202-252-2082 (fax)

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

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