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)