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  August 2008

PCCLIST August 2008

Subject:

Re: PCC Series Policy

From:

Laurence Creider <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Mon, 25 Aug 2008 12:31:56 -0600

Content-Type:

MULTIPART/MIXED

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

TEXT/PLAIN (81 lines)

I agree with Bob Maxwell and Ralph Papakhian on this point.  If the 
decision is made to water down the Bibco record to the point that almost 
anything can be labeled Bibco, then the designation loses its meaning. 
Right now, a Bibco record means that one can incorporate the record into 
one's own catalog with minimal editing.  If people have to stop and verify 
the series heading, that means that the record needs to go into a 
different workflow and that some at least of the advantage of the program 
is lost.

I also object strenuously to telling LC that the rest of the cataloging 
community accepts its decision and will essentially follow it.  My own 
feeling is that LC took a decisive act in abdicating its leadership role 
as the _cataloging_ guide for research and many other libraries.  The 
advantage for LC is that its workload and costs are lessened, but the 
price is that the PCC community needs to collectively decide what its 
standards are and not simply follow the Library of Congress or ARL 
administrators who do not really understand the concept of bibliographic 
control.

The process of decision making sounds less than participatory.  Perhaps 
the PCC should put the decision to the membership in a number of 
alternatives that are not "stacked" as in so many political polls today.

Laurence S. Creider
Special Collections Librarian
New Mexico State University
Las Cruces, NM  88003
Work: 575-646-7227
Fax: 575-646-7477
[log in to unmask]

On Mon, 25 Aug 2008, Robert Maxwell wrote:

> I don't know why the PCC Steering Committee made this decision without input from the PCC Standing Committee on Standards. I don't mind when decisions are made that I don't agree with, as long as I have had a chance to voice my opinion. It does bother me that the PCC Standing Committee on Standards did not have a chance to voice our opinion before the PCC Steering Committee made their decision.
>
> Renette Davis
> Head, Serials & Digital Resources Cataloging
> University of Chicago Library
>
> I strongly agree with this statement. The Steering Committee apparently didn't like what the Task Force recommended and so unilaterally declared what it wanted (and as Renette comments, apparently without consultation with the Standards Committee). Why did they not just make a unilateral decision in the first place and not waste everybody's time? This is not an example of what I would hope the Program for COOPERATIVE Cataloging stands for. I don't think the policy of "you can do series if you want to but if you don't want to, never mind", what the Steering Committee essentially is saying, is exactly a useful standard. This sort of decision making does nothing to increase confidence in the Program.
>
> Bob
>
>
> Robert L. Maxwell
> Head, Special Collections and Metadata Catalog Dept.
> 6728 Harold B. Lee Library
> Brigham Young University
> Provo, UT 84602
> (801)422-5568
>
> From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Renette Davis
> Sent: Monday, August 25, 2008 7:37 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: PCC Series Policy
>
> I was on the PCC Ad Hoc Series Review Task Force and we actually discussed an approach like you describe below. The problem is that if you catalog one volume in a series that has not been established yet, and you decide that the series does not need to be traced, and then I catalog the next volume in that series, I may decide that the series should be traced. If I then create a series authority record, do I need to go back and add an 830 to your record in OCLC? It seems like I should.
>
> We considered saying that if you decide the series should not be traced, you should create a series authority record saying that the series is not traced. There was quite a bit of objection to that approach, though. The hard part would be coming up with some guidelines for what kinds of series should be traced and what kinds of series do not need to be traced. It seems much easier, if a series authority record has to be made anyway, to just say trace all series.
>
> I am also on the PCC Standing Committee on Standards, and the recommendations from the Task Force came to the Standing Committee on Standards. My understanding was that we were to make a recommendation and forward it on to the PCC Steering Committee. We had not yet made our recommendation, but one of the things that we were discussing was the possibility of recommending a minimal level for BIBCO, similar to the minimal level that the Task Force recommended for CONSER.
>
> 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.
>
>
> ________________________________
> 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
>
> <snip>
>
> 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?
> Regards,
> John B. Wright
> Brigham Young University
>

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

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