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:

Monospaced Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

BIBCO Home

BIBCO Home

BIBCO  April 1999

BIBCO April 1999

Subject:

UCLA series background note

From:

Ana Cristan <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Tue, 13 Apr 1999 18:03:34 -0400

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (100 lines)

Dear BIBCO Participants:
     To further stimulate your thinking on the DRAFT Series FAQ I'm
forwarding to you a message from Carol Hixson at ULCA. Prior to ALA
Midwinter, Carol had asked another question on series procedures and
this had stimulated a discussion with Judy Kuhagen, CPSO, on the need
for a Series FAQ. Carol recently attended the Series Workshop and
looked at an early draft of the FAQ and then raised the question about
the need for a default analysis practice (644) for the PCC as raised in
her comments below.

From: Carol Hixson <[log in to unmask]>
To: Ana Cristan <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Tue, Mar 23, 1999 5:14 PM
Subject: Draft Series FAQ background note

Ana,

I have discussed this issue at length with my Head of Serials
Cataloging, Valerie Bross, and my Head of Monographic Cataloging, Jain
Fletcher, and this is what we think and how we'd like our views to be
presented:

We don't question the need for a default analysis practice. We do,
however, think the DPCC mechanism devised is incomplete. As we
understand the current DPCC guidelines, a library contributing an SAR
is only required to add in a 645 with the default decision "t" for
trace followed by the DPCC code and a 642 with the numbering and
the DPCC code, if it's a numbered series.
    In every library where we've worked, records having only a 645 would
be problematic to use in local authority files (not to mention
incomprehensible to a lot of staff). If the default decision is to
trace, then the default decision for the 644 must be to analyze. We
believe that the 644 should also be required for NACO libraries and that
the default decision should be "f". That is the only decision that makes
sense if the default decision is to trace. For those situations where
the series might be partially analyzable, Judy Kuhagen suggested that we
could use the $d with the wording to note that the decision referred to
analyzable issues.
    We would ideally like to see the default national decision be "fts",
with the default 646 being "s", but we don't feel as strongly about that
one. For those SARs that UCLA encounters that are incomplete, having
only a 645, we intend to go in and add in the 644 $5 CLU and the 646 $5
CLU to make these fully-functional records. We would prefer to encounter
fully-functional records to begin with.

    Regarding the one question on the FAQ referring to
previously-established SARs which were "fns" and how BIBCO libraries
should treat them: we do not believe that BIBCO or NACO libraries
(including LC) should be going back and revisiting those decisions, nor
do we think that they should be limited to only contributing those
records as CORE. The way we have always understood the BIBCO guidelines
is that a FULL BIBCO record requires that ALL access points be
supported by an authority record. A series authority that has "fns"
supports a 490 0 on a bibliographic record. Therefore, that record
could be contributed as a FULL BIBCO record.

The question also arises as to how a BIBCO library is to treat a series
that has previosuly been established as "ftc". The way that UCLA has
interpreted this (after discussion with LC staff) is that any BIBCO
records we submit with a series classified as a collection must have
the classed-together number from the SAR in the 050 4 of the bib
record. If our local practice is "fts", we then also add in a second $a
in the 050 with the separate classification number - just the way that
LC has always handled these in the past. We are quite comfortable with
this.

We believe that SARs that were established by LC or others before
October 1998 (or whatever cut-off date you want to use) should be left
alone as far as the 644, 645, 646 go and I think that BIBCO libraries
should follow those decisions in their BIBCO records. At the time
that those records were established, they WERE understood to be
national practice. We all looked to LC as the defacto national library.
Just because the environment is now changing and LC is being looked on
more as an equal partner, doesn't mean that we should attempt to revise
history.

     When UCLA signed on to the BIBCO program, we recognized that it
would mean that sometimes we would need to do things on the national
record that were not exactly what we wanted to do in our local record.
To us, that's the essence of cooperation - doing things for the common
good. When we find that our local practice deviates too greatly from
national practice and that it would take us too much time to follow
national practice fully, we do not submit that particular record as a
BIBCO. That is an option that all libraries have.
      For those libraries that have decided that all of their work will
be done as BIBCO, that is a local decision. However, such a local
decision should not, then, be used as a rationale for changing
previously-established SARs. I don't believe we can have it both ways:
if we believe in cooperation, then we must make compromises. I don't
think it's realistic to say we're a BIBCO library and then say that its
rules and regulations hamper us too much locally. Being a BIBCO library
is not about status; it's about cooperation and reasonable compromise.

Carol Hixson
Head, Cataloging Dept.
Young Research Library
UCLA
(310) 825-2901
[log in to unmask]

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

October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
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