Can this statement be forwarded on to the wider cataloging community
(AUTOCAT, OCLC-CAT, SERIALST)?
It really should be. This affects more than just PCC participants.
At 02:43 PM 5/25/2006, Mark Watson wrote:
>"The Program for Cooperative Cataloging is an international cooperative
>effort aimed at expanding access to library collections by providing useful,
>timely, and cost-effective cataloging that meets mutually-accepted standards
>of libraries around the world."
>The Program for Cooperative Cataloging (PCC) has been and continues to be a
>successful and dynamic program. Its achievements are based on the
>voluntary cooperation of member libraries that range from small to large to
>very large, including the Library of Congress. All of these libraries agree
>to adhere to established standards when creating records that will be
>stamped with the imprimatur of the PCC. While each member library is
>expected to meet a certain threshold of production each year, there is no
>expectation that every record produced will conform to PCC standards. This
>is a vital and important point. Each PCC library is accorded the freedom
>and the right to determine its own internal policies and procedures and the
>level to which its total cataloging output will conform to PCC conventions.
>There is nothing in the PCC guidelines to abrogate a member's flexibility to
>contribute nationally as well as to accommodate local needs and practices.
>In recognition of this fundamental aspect of PCC participation, the PCC
>Policy Committee (PoCo) formally recognizes and supports the right of the
>Library of Congress (LC) to make cataloging decisions in its own best
>interest. In this regard, PoCo is treating LC the same as it would any
>other member library and is unwilling to take a stand against LC's decision
>to discontinue series authority control. Taking this position may sound
>strange to some given the consternation expressed by segments of the library
>community; however, the stance makes sense given the type of organization
>that PCC strives to be. Were a poll to be conducted, it would not be
>surprising to find nearly as many different opinions about the series
>decision as there are PCC trained catalogers. Therefore, if consensus
>exists, it does so only on the point that all PCC members participate at a
>level that works for them.
>That said it is impossible to ignore the fact that this particular change in
>LC cataloging policy has widespread ramifications-especially in a context
>where, until now, there has been a one-to-one correspondence between LC and
>PCC standards. Over the past several weeks, many thoughtful documents have
>detailed the potential impacts of the decision, sparking debate about
>end-user interest in controlled series access, the cost/benefit of providing
>it, the amount of additional effort that may be required to perform series
>work that LC will no longer be doing as well as developing policy and
>maintaining needed documentation. These are issues that will continue to
>engage the PCC and the bibliographic community at large for some time to
>come. Several meetings at the upcoming ALA Annual Conference in New
>Orleans-the ALCTS Forum on the Library of Congress Series Authority Record
>Decision (Friday, 6/23, 4:00 p.m.) and the PCC Participants Meeting (Sunday,
>6/25, 4:00 p.m.), will be devoted to continuing the dialogue on these
>For the moment, PoCo wants to make it clear that PCC series policy remains
>unchanged. Member libraries that believe value is derived from series
>authority control are encouraged to continue this work in accordance with
>established guidelines and procedures. The Policy and Operations groups,
>along with the three standing committees, will continue to work together
>with the PCC Steering Committee, including the Library of Congress as it
>executes its role as the PCC Secretariat, in order to facilitate this
>transition to a future without LC series control.
>Submitted by Mark R. Watson, Policy Committee Chair, 2005/06 on behalf of
>PoCo([log in to unmask]).