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  May 2006

PCCLIST May 2006

Subject:

LC series decision: PCC action

From:

Paul Weiss <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Wed, 24 May 2006 12:12:29 -0700

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (96 lines)

LC series decision: PCC action

The PCC Policy Committee (PoCo) was notified by LC about LC’s series
decision on April 20, one day before the announcement was sent to the
PCCLIST. The BIBCO and Operations Committees met the following Thursday
and Friday, and I was glad to see that the program coordinators redid the
agendas to accommodate some discussion of the series decision. In joint
session, the groups spent about 45 minutes on the issue, first with a
brief overview by Maureen Landry (LC, acting PCC Secretariat), followed by
open discussion. I believe that we conveyed the major concerns to Maureen,
and that she understood them. In order for our concerns to be on record,
and to ensure that our concerns reached higher levels in LC, I suggested
that we make a motion recommending that PoCo convey our concerns to LC on
the matter. The motion was made, expanded, discussed, and passed
unanimously, despite strong objections from Mark Watson (PCC Chair). The
text of the motion appears in the Operations Committee meeting summary at
http://www.loc.gov/catdir/pcc/bibco/opco06.html#jseries. We also agreed
that there would be no immediate change in PCC policy

I think we have a number of things to do.

1. PoCo needs to decide whether to follow our recommendation to
communicate with LC or not, and to let the rest of PCC know what it
decided to do.

2. PoCo should flesh out how PCC will carry out the second part of the
motion, on evaluation PCC series practices.

3. We need to decide what changes if any should be made to PCC series
practices soon.
Should we continue to allow PCC members to
       create and maintain series authority records?
       use series headings in bibliographic records?
       (I would say yes to both of those.)
Should we incorporate any change in practice for series bibliographic
records?
Should we define a new minimal-level series authority record?
What should we do about LC and other treatment decision in series
authority records?

4. We need to fine a new home for series documentation and training,
including review.

5. We need to determine more specifically what the relationship really is
between PCC and LC, and document and communicate it more explicitly.

6. PCC needs to decide whether it really wants a Standing Committee on
Standards, and if so what the committee’s role should be. I and many of my
committee members have felt very frustrated in dealing with PoCo the last
few years. We have been jerked around on what we should or should not be
doing. We have been excluded from several PCC standards issues during my
tenure, series policies being only one. Note that in no communication from
Mark has there been a mention of SCS.

7. We need once and for all decide what is the definition of a PCC record,
what specified types of PCC records we should have, and how records are
identified as being PCC. I believe that many problems we’ve had the last
few years might not have happened if we had been clear on these issues all
along.

8. I agree with Mark that “an open, candid panel discussion on these
issues with the opportunity for audience interaction” would be a very good
topic for the PCC Participants’ Meeting in New Orleans.” I hope we get a
large attendance and active forward-thinking interaction.

9. We need to assess the implications of LC’s decision on PCC membership.
The 1994 CCC Series Authority Record Task Group Final Report noted: “For
any national program, the closer national product is to what we would do
locally in the first place, the more attractive participation will be.”
Will the decreasing leadership from LC and discontinuation of series
authority work reduce perceived benefits to PCC participation? Will we
lose members? If so, how should PCC respond?

10. PCC’s current mission states that the Program will “provide leadership
in the national and international information community.” We have been
grossly negligent in this area. We need to lead, or remove leadership from
our mission.

Rachel Wadham (Brigham Young) wrote: “I feel that the PCC is at a critical
cross roads, we need to position ourselves as an organization for the
future.  I think it now up to the PCC to take the role LC has held .... LC
has the right to make decisions for their own collections, but the PCC
needs to make decisions that are best for the whole cataloging community. 
This is a very critical crossroads and I feel that a poor decision at this
point for the PCC could mean that the PCC will no longer be a viable force
in the cataloging world and we will have to cease any cooperative effort
at all.  It is now up to us to decide if the PCC will die or if it will be
a vital force into the future.  I hope that more discussions will take
place and that the PCC will make an informed decision.” I wholeheartedly
agree. I predict that what PCC does in the next year will likely make or
break the organization.

Paul J. Weiss
Chair, PCC Standing Committee on Standards
UCSD

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

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