I have been considering a fourth option, a combination of #2 and #3, i.e.
submit a proposal to SACO but use a plausible cutter in the record and on
the book and code the record PCC.
If LC accepts the proposal, the cutter they choose may not be the same as
the one on the record, but it should be close. Since the majority of call
numbers going into our shelflist these days aren't collocated at all, I
think that this option is acceptable, and preferable to waiting for a reply
on the proposal at the current turnover rate. An increase in the number of
SACO submissions might also encourage LC to speed up the approval process
for topical cutters.
--- Alison Reissman
If the cataloger cannot find such a cutter, it seems to me
>that there are 3 options:
>1) make up a plausible cutter and use it in the record, and forget about
>coding the record PCC, even though it may comply with all other PCC
>2) make up a plausible cutter and send it in to SACO as a proposal, and
>wait for a reply to finalize the cataloging;
>3) make up a plausible cutter, use it in the record, and code the record
>PCC because the record is in compliance with all the other requirements for
>Option 1 is obviously the easiest for the cataloger, but nobody benefits
>because of the lack of PCC coding. Option 2 can be time-consuming and may
>result in duplication of effort by some other library. Option 3 is the
>option that I am advocating, since it fulfills the need for timeliness and
>quality cataloging. The BIBCO classification policy specifies that LC
>cutters should be used insofar as they are available in the schedules; it
>does not specify what to do when the cutter is not available, and whether
>the cataloger is obligated to propose a cutter in order to code a record
>PCC. For all the reasons that I cited in my first message, I am
>advocating that BIBCO not make such a requirement.
Original Cataloging Unit/CTS
110C Olin Library
[log in to unmask]
********** "The future is longer than the past." -- Linda West **********