I agree with Richard. We routinely ask LC to provide literary cutters.
This is not a big problem since LC will respond within a day or so (and
occasionally even on the same day) with the number to be used. The real
problem is with cutters which are part of non-literary, etc.
class numbers. For example, a couple days ago I submitted a new
subject for Aunts in literature and requested a cutter under PN56.A
This type of request often takes weeks to be processed. Obviously, we
don't want to hold a book for weeks waiting for an LC response. Is there
some way that the procedure at LC can be streamlined so that we can get
immediate feedback on cutter requests even though the editorial process
for new subjects can take weeks? As Richard says, libraries that use our
records should expect the class numbers to be what LC would use. At ALA
this summer, I asked Barbara Tillett about this very problem and how
LC's new system will improve the situation. She said that BIBCO libraries
after the magical date of October 1, 1999, would be able to shelflist in
LC. That would certainly make life easier.
II Marty Joachim
UU II UU Principal Cataloger
UU II UU Indiana University Libraries
UU II UU Bloomington, IN 47405
UU II UU [log in to unmask]
UUUIIUUU (812) 855-4263
II FAX (812) 855-7933
On Fri, 25 Sep 1998, Richard C. Amelung 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. 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
> 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