Let me second Kate's question or perhaps enter it as a plea. The PCC
SACO Task Force report in 2003 had asked for an OCLC-based submission
process for subjects. We were very enthused about it and hoped it would
happen soon. Even though the LC review and editorial control required
for LC subjects may never permit them to be finalized as quickly as
names and series, making provisional subject proposals available in the
OCLC subjects file once they are submitted might help a lot. 

Locally I ask my catalogers to wait for LC approval of the subjects we
submit and then enter them in the records. This has the disadvantage of
not including them on the OCLC records during the interim, but avoids
the problem Adam reported. Besides, sometimes my cross-references turn
out to be headings, etc. :) 

Happy Holidays to All,
Jimmie

Jimmie Lundgren
Science & Social Science Cataloging Unit Head
Cataloging & Metadata Dept.
Smathers Library
PO Box 117004
University of Florida
Gainesville, FL 32611-7007
352-273-2725 
352-392-7365 (fax)
[log in to unmask]
 

-----Original Message-----
From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
Behalf Of Kate Harcourt
Sent: Monday, December 22, 2008 9:47 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] Reminder: check LC Authorities for proposed
subjects

This exchange from Adam reminds me that there had been an agreement to 
move SACO record creation to OCLC. Most of this mess would have been 
avoided if a record had been in the national authority file as quickly
as 
we are able to create name authority records. I'm really curious where
we 
are in that transition? This has also come up as a concern in the ALCTS 
Implementation Task Group on the LCWG Report of which I am the chair. 
The lengthy SACO review process is seen as a barrier to the efficient 
sharing of bibliographic and authorities metadata.

Best wishes for the holidays to all!

Kate

On Mon, 22 Dec 2008, Antony Robert David Franks wrote:

> Adam has come across a situation that has bedevilled us from the
beginning of BIBCO. Once a record is sent forth into the world, any one
with the appropriate authorization can do any thing to it--whether or
not they're a PCC member.
>
> Several years ago, there was a lengthy diatribe on Autocat about the
poor quality of BIBCO records. Most of the records singled out for
public dissection were from one member institution. The institution
investigated the matter thoroughly and responded, in effect, that the
original records in their local file were correct and had none of the
faults singled out in the Autocat posting. The records had all been
changed (mostly for the worse) since distribution.
>
> As long as local catalogers cannot help themselves but revise, change,
improve, or adapt to local practice, we'll have this.
>
>>>> "Adam L. Schiff" <[log in to unmask]> 12/19/2008 8:13 PM >>>
> This is an interesting situation that is worth some discussion.  On
> November 12, we upgraded a record in OCLC to PCC status, and as part
of
> that we made a SACO subject proposal and a SACO classification
proposal.
>
> The record in question is OCLC 268662166.  The title of the work is:
> Capture-based aquaculture : global overview
>
> We made a subject proposal to establish "Capture-based aquaculture"
and at
> the same time we proposed a new class number for this subject
(SH137.33).
> The proposals were approved on weekly list 50 and the subject
authority
> record was added to OCLC on Dec. 11.
>
> Subsequent to our authenticating this record as a BIBCO record,
another
> PCC library changed the subject heading to "Cage aquaculture".  I'm
not
> sure which library did this, because there are four PCC library codes
> after ours in the 040 of the record.  I assume that whoever made this
> change did so because they didn't find the heading Capture-based
> aquaculture in the OCLC authority file.  It was still working its way
> through the proposal/editorial process at LC.  If the cataloger who
> changed the heading to a much less specific or appropriate heading had
> checked the LC Authorities web site (http://authorities.loc.gov/) they
> would have seen that the subject heading on the record had been
proposed
> through SACO.  They should not have altered it on the BIBCO record.
>
> So... it would be good to remind all catalogers that if a record is
> authenticated as a PCC record and they don't find a subject heading or
> classification number that is on that record in the OCLC authority
file or
> on Classification Web, it's almost certainly because the heading or
number
> has been submitted through SACO.  They can check on proposed subjects
by
> looking in Library of Congress Authorities.
>
> I've changed the subject heading on OCLC #268662166 back to what it
was
> and should be: Capture-based aquaculture.
>
> It also strikes me as odd that someone modified the 530 note that we
had
> on the record from "Also issued electronically via World Wide Web in
PDF
> format" (which is text that comes right out of AACR2) to the much less
> specific "Also issued online".  It's not clear to me why a cataloger
would
> change that note on a BIBCO record.
>
> Happy Holidays everyone,
>
> Adam Schiff
>
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Adam L. Schiff
> Principal Cataloger
> University of Washington Libraries
> Box 352900
> Seattle, WA 98195-2900
> (206) 543-8409
> (206) 685-8782 fax
> [log in to unmask]
> http://faculty.washington.edu/~aschiff
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>

Kate Harcourt
Director, Original and Special Materials Cataloging
102 Butler Library
Columbia University Libraries
phone: 212.854.2714
fax: 212.854.5167