LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for BIBCO Archives


BIBCO Archives

BIBCO Archives


BIBCO@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

BIBCO Home

BIBCO Home

BIBCO  September 1998

BIBCO September 1998

Subject:

Re: Classification numbers

From:

"Richard C. Amelung" <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Fri, 25 Sep 1998 09:06:21 -0500

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (96 lines)

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.  Here are
my reasons:

        1)  I have always considered author cutters to be a different
animal from the usual cutter number assigned based on principal access
point.  The former frequently enjoy, after all, the privilege of being
printed in the schedules (once established).  When one classes a title in
the H's and one is asked to cutter by "industry or trade" or by "region or
country", I believe it is current practice to verify the "cutter"
previously used. Authors should be no different.

        Certainly, I *DO* think that it would indeed be an onerous task to
check every garden variety cutter against the LC file.   However, not all
cutters are created equal.  Also, I think that most of us may qualify our
RLIN and certainly OCLC searches to retrieve LC or National level records
only.

        2)  When one alludes to the desire for greater productivity for
cataloging centers, I think that there may be a misapplication of which
cataloging centers we're talking about.  My take on this phrase is that
the pcc libraries were agreeing to assure this level of quality cataloging
so that *ALL* cataloging centers having access to the pcc records would
enjoy a higher level of productivity.  When institutions come to me for
information about paricipation in pcc and from Saint Louis Univ. Law
Library's 14 years of participation in national cooperative activities, I
never tell them that *THEIR* productivity will go up!!

        3)  Finally, I always try to consider who will be using the bib.
records we're creating.  My assumption has always been that if we're doing
national level records, other libraries using this data we create are
assured that they would be able to accept key elements (such as author
cutters), without further verification.  If they cannot, where are the
greater library world savings?  Granted, we needed to spend time checking
the number once (something I thought we all agreed to do when we signed on
to pcc).  If we didn't check when we created the record, we're obliging
the 200 or more other libraries who will use that record to check the same
number. Furthermore, if there is inconsistency in verification among pcc
libraries, then it will be as if *NONE* of them verify.  The library
community will be constrained to check every single time ....   hardly an
advantage over the state of affairs before pcc!!!




----------------------------------------------------------------
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

On Thu, 24 Sep 1998, Pat Williams wrote:

>         For what it's worth, I would like to express my endorsement of Willy
> Cromwell-Kessler's earlier interpretation of the BIBCO policy of applying
> LC classification.  As a veteran of NCCP, as well as previous cataloging
> projects with LC, I am aware of the potential drawbacks of requiring PCC
> libraries to vet any new cutter numbers, whether for authors, artists,
> musicians, or other subjects, against LC's shelflist before using them in a
> nationally-coded record.  This could become a time-consuming requirement,
> and one that is calculated to deter libraries from expanding their PCC
> contributions.  I believe that such a requirement would be
> counterproductive to the spirit and goals of PCC, which aim to foster
> creation of high quality records in a timely manner, but without imposing
> extra obligations on participating libraries.  I agree with Willy that the
> use of the indicator 4 in the 050 should be sufficient indication to
> libraries that the call number was not assigned by LC, and is subject to
> change if LC uses and reissues the record.
>
>         Also, as a cataloging supervisor responsible for high productivity of a
> thinly-staffed unit, I would feel compelled to discourage catalogers in my
> library from contributing PCC coded records, if there was an additional
> obligation to obtain LC approval for any subject cutters new to the
> classification schedules.   I would also hazard a guess that LC staff would
> be equally reluctant to see such a requirement enforced, given the
> workloads they already have.    I believe 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.
>
>         Further streamlining of the process of proposing new classifications and
> cutters would certainly ease future compliance with a requirement to
> strictly follow LC subject cutters, but at present I think the goals of PCC
> are better served by following Willy's initial interpretation of the BIBCO
> call number policy.
>
> Pat Williams
> Asst. Head, Cataloging Dept.
> University of Chicago Library
>

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 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
November 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
January 2017
December 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 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
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
September 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
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
May 2004
March 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
April 2003
March 2003
January 2003
December 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
January 2002
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
July 2000
June 2000
May 2000
April 2000
March 2000
February 2000
January 2000
December 1999
October 1999
September 1999
August 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

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.LOC.GOV

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager