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 2006

PCCLIST November 2006

Subject:

Re: New CONSER Standard Record Approved (fwd)

From:

"Charbonneau, Mechael Dawn" <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Wed, 29 Nov 2006 05:13:35 -0500

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (171 lines)

Kevin,  

Thank you for sharing your thoughts regarding PoCo's recent approval of
the new CONSER standard record.  In response to your concerns, let me
offer a few observations that will also serve to explain why I view the
need for formal PoCo voting as unnecessary.

This new initiative represents perhaps the most comprehensively
researched endeavor ever conducted by CONSER.  Since August 2005, over
150 individuals were either directly involved as members of a working
group, review group, or as pilot project participants.  Presentations
concerning the proposal were given at CONSER meetings and at other
relevant venues such as NASIG and ALA.  There were two separate
opportunities for CONSER participants to formally offer comments --
first on the standard record itself (July 24-Oct. 1) and later on the
encoding level and authentication codes (Sept. 22-Oct. 15).   The issues
you specifically raised on CONSRLST in early October and the ensuing
online discussion among members were also a valuable part of the overall
comment process.  

PoCo took into careful consideration all of the feedback received during
this year long development before endorsing the new CONSER standard
record.  It was overwhelmingly clear in our discussions that moving
forward to the implementation stage was felt to be highly desirable by
the majority of stakeholders.  

As you stated so well in an Oct. 6th posting on CONSRLST, "Regardless of
the immediate outcome of any PoCo action on the report, there are issues
that will likely continue to be discussed down the road, since
cataloging guidelines are never a static object."  PoCo acknowledged
that additional work was still needed to address a few remaining areas
of concern and has charged the working group members to give all
comments received serious consideration and deliberation as they work
towards final resolution.  

Just as the process leading to the adoption of the standard record has
been very transparent and widely inclusive, the working group will
continue to employ a strategy that incorporates broad consultation on
the remaining pre-implementation issues.  

--Mechael 

-----Original Message-----
From: Kevin M. Randall [mailto:[log in to unmask]] 
Sent: Monday, November 20, 2006 11:21 AM
To: Charbonneau, Mechael Dawn
Cc: [log in to unmask]; [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] New CONSER Standard Record Approved (fwd)

Mechael:  Thank you for detailing the status of the Access Level Record
proposal.

But on such a serious matter (changing the very basis of the program's
cataloging standards), I am very disappointed that neither CONSER nor
PoCo asked the CONSER Operations Committee for a formal vote on its own
endorsement on the Working Group recommendations, as additional
information for PoCo to consider in its deliberations.  The introduction
to the summary comments (sent out by Les Hawkins on Oct. 24, 2006)
implies a much higher level of agreement with the overall proposal than
appears to be backed up by the compiled comments,  I am very curious as
to what the entire OpCo's sense on the matter (and details) might be.
OpCo, as a group, gave general positive response to only a presentation
of a draft proposal, and has not met since then.

At this point, I respectfully request that the entire OpCo be given a
larger role in resolving the more significant issues raised during the
comment period, such as by having formal votes on proposals regarding
individual items.  (Two specific issues I will mention at the moment,
and which are addressed in the summary comment introduction, are uniform
titles and encoding levels.)


Kevin M. Randall
Head of Serials Cataloging
Northwestern University Library
1970 Campus Drive
Evanston, IL  60208-2300
email: [log in to unmask]
phone: (847) 491-2939
fax:   (847) 491-4345

At 07:30 AM 11/20/2006, Les Hawkins wrote:
>---------- Forwarded message ----------
>Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2006 08:00:45 -0500
>From: "Charbonneau, Mechael Dawn" <[log in to unmask]>
>Reply-To: Program for Cooperative Cataloging <[log in to unmask]>
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: [PCCLIST] New CONSER Standard Record Approved
>
>PCC Community:
>
>I am pleased to announce that the PCC Policy Committee has endorsed the

>recommendations of the final reports submitted by the Access Level 
>Record for Serials Working Group and the Working Group on 
>Authentication Codes and Encoding Levels for Serials and Integrating 
>Resources.  The implementation date for the new CONSER standard record 
>has been set for February 1, 2007.  Many thanks to all of the Working 
>Group members for their outstanding work throughout this process.
>
>
>
>PoCo wants to assure that the recommendations are implemented in the 
>spirit that they were offered by the working groups, namely, to provide

>in an effective and timely manner a record that consistently ensures 
>identification of and access to a serial title.  To that end, the 
>Working Group has defined the set of required elements needed in every 
>CONSER standard record.  All other elements are optional, but not 
>precluded, and can be added as needed based on cataloger's judgment.
>
>
>
>PoCo recognizes that the comments received during the review period 
>identified some areas where additional work is needed to resolve 
>conflicting instructions or clarify some ambiguities. The PoCo has 
>charged the Working Group to review the comments and resolve those 
>problems, and to work with CPSO to assure that rule interpretations are

>in place for those recommendations which are not fully compliant with 
>current AACR2 practice (most of which anticipate upcoming RDA changes).
>Staff in CPSO that serve on the JSC can also help assure that the new 
>CONSER standard will be compatible with RDA.
>
>
>
>NEXT STEPS:
>
>Members of the original working group will be asked to work on 
>resolving issues raised during the comment period.
>
>
>
>LCRIs:
>
>The co-chairs Regina Reynolds (LC) and Diane Boehr (NLM), will meet 
>with Barbara Tillett (CPSO) to determine what AACR2 LCRIs are needed.
>
>
>
>DOCUMENTATION:
>
>The documentation produced by the Working Group provides a base 
>foundation for the new standard. Work has begun on a document which 
>merges required record elements with succinct cataloging instructions.
>This document will reflect the decisions that the working group makes 
>in resolving some of the outstanding ambiguities or conflicts, will 
>have additional appendices with examples, guidelines for working with 
>copy, and other tools, and will link to existing sections of CONSER 
>documentation where applicable.
>
>
>
>TRAINING:
>
>Melissa Beck (UCLA), a member of the working group, has agreed to 
>develop training materials for the CONSER standard record that could be

>used in face-to-face workshop settings, adaptable to delivery in an 
>online format, and made available for all by downloading on the CONSER 
>web site.  A new SCCTP module will also be developed based on these 
>training materials.  A preliminary training session is already planned 
>for ALA Midwinter 2007, during the Monday afternoon meeting of the 
>ALCTS Continuing Resources Cataloging Committee.
>
>
>
>Mechael D. Charbonneau
>
>PoCo Chair, 2007

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

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