Kate Harcourt wrote in answer to Renett Davis:
<<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.>>
I believe that a BIBCO minimal level record proposal is one which should be strongly supported for various reasons. If one is concerned with both database quality and workflow there are bound to be cases where cataloger's judgment indicates that "I have neither the time nor resources to fully do justice to what I have in hand" and the option should be available to enter a high quality minimal level record. The next person who encounters that record may be able to convert it to a full one with little effort because of locally available expertise or other resources.
Are there others who think the time has come to recognize the need for BIBCO minimal records?
Asian Materials Specialist/PCC Liaison
Western Washington University
Bellingham, WA 98225-9103