Sue Wartzok wrote:
<<Hear! Hear! We are an OCLC Enhance library but not BIBCO. We see lots of
PCC records that we'd like to be able to lock and correct ... but we
can't do that. The truth of the matter is that qualifying for OCLC
Enhance status was rigorous. Consequently, I have no doubt that our
Principal Monographic Cataloger could qualify for BIBCO. But we are so
short staffed that we can't spare the time.
PCC should only be entered on quality records because that "PCC" on an
OCLC record means that even Enhance libraries cannot lock and replace
WR. I agree wholeheartedly. We were going to apply for Enhance status but in reading the documentation found that Enhance libraries cannot correct "pcc" and those are most of the "noncorrectable" records we find which need correcting.
Patricia Williams wrote:
> What's the point of a minimal level BIBCO record? When I find myself with "neither the time nor resources to fully do justice to what I have in hand," I simply make the record level K in Connexion, and don't mark it PCC. Just because I work in a library that is a PCC member does not mean that everything I catalog has to be coded as PCC. The same can be done by any other other PCC cataloger, including the Library of Congress.
> Pat Williams
> University of Chicago Library
WR. This is what I believe most BIBCO libraries do and I only wish that it was the case with all BIBCO libraries. Then, indeed, there would be no need for minimal level BIBCO records. We are not a BIBCO library but we input level K records when, for example, all of the authority work cannot be completed and I very much appreciate the many libraries doing the same thing.
Asian Materials Specialist/PCC Liaison
Western Washington University
Bellingham, WA 98225-9103