I sometimes put $5 in original records when I'm not sure something is purely local. I figure a cataloger with another copy might be interested in it, as you say. But if she recognizes it as being non-local when she sees the record, I'd have no objection to her removing the $5 code from the master record.
And I suppose if she recognizes it as being purely local, I'd have no objection to her removing the field altogether, as long as she is mindful of the possible need another library might have for such items.
When the only copy you have for reference is your own, it's hard to know sometimes whether something is unique to it. Maybe that's particularly true for rare book elements like cancel leaves.
UAB Lister Hill Library
From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Amy Turner
Sent: Monday, June 07, 2010 12:02 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] a NACO question
My reading of the standards is that the $5 indicates that the heading only applies to certain copies of the work, not that it is "local" in construction. OCLC distinguishes between completely local notes and headings, which should not be entered on master records and can be deleted, and those that "are of interest beyond the inputting library" and are identified by $5 (cf. the section on local notes in http://www.oclc.org/bibformats/en/onlinecataloging/default.shtm)
So, I think that the best thing to do when upgrading a record containing a $5 that one does not wish to support with an authority record is not to make it a PCC record.
On the more general question of the size of the pool of PCC records, are others discouraged from making PCC records because present OCLC policy locks them from upgrades by non-PCC libraries (although LC records CAN be upgraded?). I would like for the "Expert Community Experiment" to be expanded so that any library could correct or enhance a PCC record. Or, if we really want to retain a special status for national-level records, one would think LC records would be included in that group.