Sorry, the formatting of the Task Force recommendations for the minimal level CONSER record got messed up (at least in the version that came back to me.) Here they are again, with some punctuation that will hopefully make it easier to read if the formatting gets messed up again.
Series authority file may or may not be checked.
Existing PCC treatment decision may or may not be followed.
If existing series is traced, form must match series authority record.
New series may or may not be traced.
If new series is traced, authority record must be created.
I also didn't address the issue of the CONSER standard record type of monograph record for BIBCO. I think if there is interest in going that direction, it should be pursued, along with the issue of a minimal level record for BIBCO. The standard record would replace the full/core record and the minimal record would be for those institutions that are not doing series authority work.
From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Renette Davis
Sent: Monday, August 25, 2008 2:01 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] PCC Series Policy
I wasn't talking about a CONSER standard record type of monograph record for BIBCO. The CONSER standard record guidelines do, in fact, require checking the series authority file, adding an 830 if the series has been established, and establishing the series if it has not been established. What I was talking about was a minimal level record for BIBCO, similar to the minimal level record that the Task Force recommended for CONSER, which says:
Series authority file may or may not be checked
Existing PCC treatment decision mayor may not be followed
If existing series is traced, form must match series authority record
New series may or may not be traced
If new series is traced, authority record must be created
There already was a minimal level record for CONSER and this was just redefining it slightly, so that LC serials catalogers could create CONSER records. That was very important since vendors buy the CONSER database and use it to supply services to libraries.
There did not seem to be a similar motivation for creating a BIBCO minimal level because LC monograph records do not go into a database like the CONSER database, which vendors purchase. Also, in various discussions on the PCC list and at ALA, there did not seem to be any call for a minimal level record for monographs.
However, if BIBCO members want to go in the direction of a minimal level record for use by those institutions that don't do series authority work (and if the PCC Steering Committee and PCC Policy Committee agree) I certainly am all for it. I think the original Task Force members would agree, and my guess is that the PCC Standing Committee on Standards would also agree. Note that these are just my personal opinions, though.
From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Kate Harcourt
Sent: Monday, August 25, 2008 1:19 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] PCC Series Policy
I strongly disagree that there isn't interest in one BIBCO record along
the lines of the CONSER standard record. I have heard the idea promoted
in numerous groups and it certainly fits the LC Working Group
recommendation to increase the efficiency of bibliographic record
production and maintenance. We should be concerned only with creating
records that are sufficient for access and identification. As a BIBCO
trainer and a head of cataloging, it seems harder and harder these days
to rationalize requiring and training catalogers to make core/full
distinctions, especially when they catalog both monographs and serials.
John's approach values cataloger judgment and unlike the PoCO proposal
requires a good faith search of the authority file. It would be clear at
the time of cataloging that a reasoned decision was made not to create a
SAR. The breakdown is that a SAR could be created the next day. OCLC
should explore if there is a way to automatically change existing 490's
to 830's when a SAR is created.
> That would have taken care of several of the objections that the PCC
> Steering Committee had. The reason the Task Force had not recommended
> a minimal level for BIBCO to begin with was that there seemed to be no
> interest from the BIBCO community. However, if the Standing Committee
> on Standards had recommended that, I feel pretty certain that the Task
> Force would have agreed. And if the PCC Steering Committee had asked
> for something like that, I am also pretty sure that the Task Force
> would have agreed.
> Renette Davis
> Head, Serials & Digital Resources Cataloging
> University of Chicago Library
> *From:* Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> *On Behalf Of *John Wright
> *Sent:* Friday, August 22, 2008 5:21 PM
> *To:* [log in to unmask]
> *Subject:* Re: [PCCLIST] PCC Series Policy
> ALTERNATIVE APPROACH: I would like to propose a different option that
> would accommodate the TGIP recommendations to increase PCC
> international participation. With the recent adoption of MARBI to not
> use the 440 and recognize the 4xx as a field to simply transcribe the
> series statement, perhaps we could all embrace that
> practice-transcribe all series statements as found in the item being
> cataloged in a 490 field. The series statement would need to be
> searched in the authority file and if the SAR exists, all PCC
> participants must follow the PCC treatment decision. If the SAR
> exists, add an 830 field with the authorized form of the series
> heading. If the SAR does not exist, the PCC participant can decide to
> create the SAR or not for both PCCFull- and PCC Core-level records. In
> this way, PCC participants can have some confidence that the bib
> record reflects the information found in the authority file. The
> decision to create or not create SARs will be left to cataloger's
> judgment. In my own cataloging of Spanish and Portuguese language
> materials there are multiple series that I believe are not very useful
> or helpful to the library user, but because of PCC standards, I create
> SARs in order to contribute PCC Full-level records. If PCC
> participants had the option to create SARs for only those series
> judged to be useful, international participation would increase. The
> TGIP recommendations regarding simplifying the SAR creation processes
> still need to be addressed.
> Any other ideas?
> John B. Wright
> Brigham Young University
Director, Original and Special Materials Cataloging
102 Butler Library
Columbia University Libraries