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
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
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
[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.
> Robert L. Maxwell
> Head, Special Collections and Metadata Catalog Dept.
> 6728 Harold B. Lee Library
> Brigham Young University
> Provo, UT 84602
> 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
> 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