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...
<snip>
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."
--Karen
******************************
Karen Calhoun
Head, Mediation Services, Central Technical Services
110-D Olin Library
Cornell University
Ithaca NY 14853
Voice: 607-255-9915
Fax: 607-255-6110
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
|