Ted Gemberling wrote: 

<<I think another way to approach this matter would be to say that more
records should be K level. And maybe that's one of the problems
associated with the PCC program, that it puts a subtle pressure on
catalogers to claim more competency than they really have. In
retrospect, I realize I should have made that modern Greek record a K,
so that a more knowledgeable person could revise it easily, though I did
try to be careful and thorough.=20

I think there's a sort of stigma attached to a K-level record: you're
not a "real cataloger" if you enter records like that. But we need to
create K-level records if we're working in an area where we don't have
knowledge.=20>>

I think Ted has hit the nail on the head. I have entered "K" level
records when I can't complete all of the authority work (requires
extensive research, time constraints, vital information missing--there
are many reasons). 

I know other libraries do this. I have found many Harvard "K" records
far better than many "I"s and "blanks". The descriptive cataloging is
usually superb and the only thing missing is that not all authority work
has been completed. 

There shouldn't be any stigma attached to  saying "I don't have enough
information to do this right at this time." It seems to me that pcc
should allow "K" equivalent records. I think it would speed up workflow
as well as allowing someone who did have the information at hand to
upgrade the record.

Wayne Richter
Asian Materials Specialist/PCC Liaison
The Libraries
Western Washington University
Bellingham WA 98225-9103