Karen ... [et al.].
I too agree that one should not waste time trying to ascertain
that "the cuttering complies strictly with the LC shelflist". (After all,
I really do defy the average cataloger to figure out some of those old
This has nothing to do with the FIRST cutter, which is what I've
been talking about. What I understand that you're advocating is that if I
have the latest Perry Mason mystery, it's ok for me to assign
PS3514.A72 (which is where Gardner would normally fall) instead
of the LC applied
PS3514.A6322 (where the other 500 titles in everybody else's
library are sitting ... now THAT was helpful).
There is and always will be the quantity vs. quality issue. It's
hard to imagine that we're all soooooooo stressed out that we can't do the
right thing here. Or that having one more bib record with a questionable
cutter that will have to be verified and tweeked by everyone is in any way
the efficient way to do it.
One fewer email message to read and it would have been done! ...
but oh no, I had to send it!!!!!
BTW ... how are things?
Richard C. Amelung (314) 977-2743
Head of Technical Services Fax: (314) 977-3966
Saint Louis University Law Library
3700 Lindell Blvd. E-mail: [log in to unmask]
St. Louis, Missouri 63108
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Fri, 25 Sep 1998 12:17:19 -0400
From: Karen Calhoun <[log in to unmask]>
Reply-To: Program for Cooperative Cataloging <[log in to unmask]>
To: Multiple recipients of list BIBCO <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Classification numbers
At 09:06 AM 9/25/98 -0500, Richard wrote:
>Dear Friends--- I wanted to share a few thoughts I had about the current
>discussion which I believe originated concerning the verification of
>author cutter numbers on LC records vs. using a locally created cutter.
> I may be in a minority here, but my personal view is that such
>"author cutters" *should* be checked against LC's application...
Friends: I'd like to weigh in here. I was fortunate to attend the first
BIBCO Operations Committee meeting this past spring, and as many of you
know I have been an enthusiastic promoter of PCC and its various programs,
including their predecessors, for many years. As we discussed at the BIBCO
Ops meeting, the biggest impediment to the success of PCC right now is the
somewhat sluggish rate with which the program is growing. We need more
libraries and we need more PCC records! To get there, we need ideas on how
to make BIBCO an eminently desirable program to be in.
With growth of the program being a high priority, I would be loath to put
additional requirements on existing or potential new contributors. I must
agree with Pat Williams' view that "the potential usefulness to all
libraries of records coded as PCC and produced in a timely fashion is more
important than expending time to ensure that the cuttering complies
strictly with the LC shelflist."
Head, Mediation Services, Central Technical Services
110-D Olin Library
Ithaca NY 14853
E-mail: [log in to unmask]
"Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it's too
dark to read." --Groucho Marx