Hi Shana, these are good questions. Robert Bremer and I had a discussion
about converting records a couple of weeks ago. I intended to send
something out to the list about it before I left on vacation for two weeks
but I didn't do that, sorry all!
Here are some things from our conversation that relate to your questions,
but I'll let Robert add any needed clarifications. There are also other
comments of mine on things Robert and I didn't discuss. These questions
are important to BIBCO members working with these records, so I'll copy
the BIBCO list on this.
1. Since we announced the availability of converting and authenticating
PCC records for integrating resources, several CONSER and BIBCO
institutions have had various difficulties doing the conversion and
authentication of existing "interim" bib level m records in a one step
process. Other folks seemed not to have the difficulty at all or were able
to work around it in a multiple step process. There were several
variables related to the records themselves and perhaps the type of
authorization that allowed it to work for some and not for others in
the two programs.
Robert made a good suggestion for simplifying at least the conversion end
of it. We thought it might be a good idea for OCLC to go ahead and convert
as many of thes (non-LC) interim bib level m records as soon as possible.
The "interim" practice records seem like good likely candidates for a
first automated swipe since they are easily identified. Then, institutions
would only need to deal with authenticating the records with 042 pcc and
Of those monograph records for integrating resources created before the
interim practice, (this is just my opinion) there are probably some that
can be more readily identified for conversion by machine than others. As
for the question of CONSER authorizations being able to convert a
"pre-interim" monograph records coded pcc, I think that may not be
possible as our intention was to keep the BIBCO and the CONSER
authorizations as distinct as possible as far as books and serials go,
except for being able to mutually maintain records for integrating
resources. But we'll need to let Robert comment on this because I am not
2. I was assuming it was ok for us to convert NLM records, but lets let
NLM confirm this.
3. Changing records coded computer file: My first reaction is, I think if
they are clearly language material and were clearly mis-coded its ok to
change. But I think we ought to use some caution here, especially with
those records that are already coded 042 pcc, that might have been coded
or created by BIBCO members. I think that there might be some cases where
one cataloger codes a resources as primarily computer file format, as an
"online service" for example and another sees it as primarily language
material. I mention this because there is such an example in the SCCTP
workshop for integrating resouces, with the caution that some folks might
see it one way and others another. So I think its worth discussing a bit
more, what do others think? I think I'd prefer converting or simply
accepting how another cataloger has coded the resource, especially if we
know it might be viewed one way or another, rather than creating a
duplicate in another format.
4. I think if you are converting records, they should be counted
as existing records.
On Wed, 22 Aug 2007, Shana L. McDanold wrote:
> Good morning!
> I need some clarification on a few issues that have come up that are
> related to the authenticating of integrating resource records (adding a
> LCCN and 042 pcc). I have a very talented intern that is working on
> cataloging the plethora of databases we subscribe to. She has built up
> quite the file of records that need updating for one reason or another
> so the decision was made to go all out and authenticate the records,
> complete with the necessary NACO work (she's getting a lot of experience
> out of this internship).
> *1.* What I understand is that if the interim practice was followed, we
> can change the fixed fields in the record to convert the monograph
> record to an integrating resource record (removing the serial 006 field
> in the process). My question is about those items that were cataloged
> before the interim practice existed. There are many integrating
> resource records out there that need updating (title variations, etc.)
> but were done as monographs, with no 006 for the serial aspects, but the
> 5xx notes make it clear that they are in fact for what are now
> considered integrating resources. Can we changes these monograph
> records to integrating resource records and authenticate them? Or do we
> need to create a "new" integrating resource record for them? I'd prefer
> to not create what I see as a duplicate record just because they were
> pre-interim practice.
> Ultimately, my concern is centered on changing the fixed field drop down
> from "Books" to "Continuing Resources," will the system let us (usually
> this is not allowed in OCLC unless you are creating a new record)? And
> will it let us if the 006 for serials isn't present?
> *2.* I know to exclude DLC records from the converting. Do we also need
> to exclude NLM records?
> *3.* Related to number one, what do we do with those items that were
> done as "Computer Files" originally (due to old rules)? Can we convert
> them to "Continuing Resources" or do we have to create a new record?
> Again, these are resources that are clearly text-based integrating
> resources like online databases.
> *4.* This question is actually related to the CONSER statistics
> form...would we consider these "authentications of existing records"?
> Shana L. McDanold
> Electronic Resources & Serials Cataloging Librarian
> University of Pennsylvania Libraries
> Van Pelt-Dietrich Library Center
> 3420 Walnut Street
> Philadelphia, PA 19104-6206
> phone: 215-746-0267
> fax: 215-573-9610
> e-mail: [log in to unmask]