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: FW: [PCCLIST] BIBCO minimal level record--was PCC Series Policy

From:

Laurence Creider <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Fri, 29 Aug 2008 16:02:26 -0600

Content-Type:

TEXT/PLAIN

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

TEXT/PLAIN (103 lines)

Cataloging rules can be simplified, but they are complex because reality 
is complex.  Core level records contain everything need for quality 
cataloging but the question is whether we are talking low or high quality 
The lack of notes in core records mean that I cannot always tell whether 
the record refers to what I have in hand.  People lose access through 
inadequate subject headings and, more importantly, through failure to 
provide access to names and works.  If this must be done, do it and label 
it.  Don't say it is wonderful cataloging or anything but an expedient due 
to lack of resources.

Yes, you can add things records; but if the material has been taken away 
from a professional flow and given to someone told to do as little editing 
as possible, gaps will probably not be filled.

As for series, the failure to record or use authority control on series 
simply takes work from one back and puts on the backs of many.  In the 
worst case scenario, libraries don't even bother with series.  Serious 
academic researchers and young adults alike rely on controlled series 
access points to locate materials, however.  Post-cataloging authority 
control is possible on the local level, but that only works with records 
that have already been created. Creating records and then saying that 
something that does not have its access points controlled is a record that 
can be used by others with minimal human involvement is inaccurate at 
best.

Many past attempts to "simplify" cataloging, such as the descriptive 
practices Seymour Lubetzky introduced to Library of Congress cataloging, 
end up creating problems years later when people are trying to use 
bibliographic data.  I think that simplifying instructions and principles 
is possible and desirable, but I am highly dubious of solutions that allow 
for the omission of information that scholars need.

Finally, LC has taken a step with its series policy that many of us 
disagree with, and I vigorously object to essentially rewarding them for 
bad behavior.  They should be able to do what they will, but they should 
not be able to say that their records meet Bibco standards when they do 
not.

Laurence S. Creider
Special Collections Librarian
New Mexico State University
Las Cruces, NM
575-646-7447
[log in to unmask]

On Fri, 29 Aug 2008, Amy H Turner wrote:

> I believe in simplification of cataloging rules.  I have been flamed by
> people who think that "simplification" means "dumbing down" and that every
> last RI is necessary for good bibliographic control.   But simple is not
> the same is easy, and accurate bibliographic description and good, concise
> subject analysis will never be easy.   Sometimes the rules take on a life
> of their own, and distract attention from true aim of our work.  Mental
> energy spent deliberating finer points of the rules could be redirected to
> analyzing the intellectual content of what we are cataloging.
>
> I believe that the core record contains everything needed for quality
> cataloging, and as a "floor" it also allows the addition of more elements.
>  Every full record in OCLC could be coded as core, though not every core
> record could be coded as full.   So, much time is saved by coding
> everything core, rather than making the distinction.   Even more time is
> saved in training by teaching only the core standard.
>
> IMHO, the main difference between core and full are fewer notes and more
> room for judgement in core, and these are both good things.   I would like
> for PCC to embrace core as its only standard, but I don't think that is
> likely.
>
> I was restraining myself from ranting about this, but that was a direct
> question :-)
>
> Amy
>
> Amy H. Turner
> Monographic Cataloger & Authority Control Coordinator
> Duke University Libraries
> Durham, NC   27708-0190
> [log in to unmask]
>
>
>
> "A. Ralph Papakhian" <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent by: Program for Cooperative Cataloging <[log in to unmask]>
> 08/29/2008 10:57 AM
> Please respond to
> Program for Cooperative Cataloging <[log in to unmask]>
>
> On Fri, 29 Aug 2008, Amy H Turner wrote:
> ...
>> it.   For BIBCO, some (including me) have embraced core on philosophical
>> principles and use it even when the record is indistinguishable from a
>> full record (often) and others have the same preference for full.
>
> hi,
> i curious to know what philosophical principles are involved in using core
> level even when the record is indistinguishable from a full record.
> i don't understand why this would be a matter of philosophy nor why a
> full record would intentionally be coded as core.
>
> --ralph papakhian (cook music library, indiana 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

June 2020
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