LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for PCCLIST Archives


PCCLIST Archives

PCCLIST Archives


PCCLIST@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

PCCLIST Home

PCCLIST Home

PCCLIST  July 1999

PCCLIST July 1999

Subject:

Re: Citing PCC records in 670 fields

From:

Margaretta Yarborough <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Mon, 12 Jul 1999 17:51:33 +0600

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (111 lines)

The RLIN angle would have solved the mystery neatly, but in this case the
offending record was indeed an OCLC record, input by a BIBCO library last
January.  We've already input the NACO record, minus any reference to the
PCC record, and I'm only waiting on the 005 field to show up before I let
the library in question know, for information only, that we've added it.
(So if you see email from me in your inbox, run!!)  It seemed much simpler
(barring this discussion, of course) for the cataloger here to input the
record rather than having to pitch her work and have someone at another
institution reinvent the wheel.  But as I noted earlier, if we'd at all
disagreed with the form, we would have done just that.

mjy
____________________________________________________________________
Margaretta Yarborough                                    [log in to unmask]
Monographic Cataloging
Davis Library CB# 3914
UNC-CH                                                (919) 962-9693
Chapel Hill, NC  27514-8890                       fax (919) 962-4450

On Mon, 12 Jul 1999, Robert Maxwell wrote:

> There is one point that has not been brought out in this thread, and that
> is that the record in question may not have been a PCC record at all, if it
> was found in RLIN. An RLIN PCC record (A), when derived by a non-PCC
> library (B), does not lose its 042 PCC designation (or the fixed field
> code) unless the deriving library manually removes it. Then the deriving
> non-PCC library (B) might change the access points in the record, or add
> access points without doing NACO work. Therefore when a cataloger in
> library C spots an RLIN cluster containing, now, at least two PCC records,
> he/she might not pick the "real" PCC record to derive from; if the "PCC"
> record from library B is chosen, that record will contain headings not
> reflected in the NAF.
>
> This is NOT simply a hypothetical situation. We are encountering it more
> and more frequently as the BIBCO program progresses, and have concluded
> that records marked "PCC" found on RLIN (i.e., our universe of findable
> records, we being an RLIN library), while likely to be correct and have all
> the authority work done, cannot in fact be taken at face value; we have to
> check the authority anyway, because the "PCC" record chosen might not
> actually have been created by a PCC library. We have taken this up with
> RLIN and they seem unable to deal with the problem.
>
> This is one reason I have proposed before the possibility of a database of
> PCC records similar to the NAF, which would be shared by both the utilities
> (another problem with the BIBCO database as it now exists is that the RLIN
> database of PCC records is quite different from the OCLC database of PCC
> records since there is little sharing of PCC records between the two).
> Records derived from this database would no longer be coded PCC in RLIN,
> but would look like any other record in an RLIN cluster. The "master" (to
> borrow OCLC terminology) PCC record in the cluster could stand alone and
> should be updatable by any PCC library (and then forwarded to the shared
> database, just as updates to NACO records are).
>
> Bob Maxwell
>
> At 09:12 AM 7/9/99 -0700, you wrote:
> >Margaretta,
> >   Agreed, point well taken, etc.  I would also hope that this
> >situation simply does not arise again.  But I would just like to
> >suggest a possible different approach to this: rather than ignore the
> >existence of the PCC record, contact the PCC liaison at the institution
> >(from the 040 of the bib record) and (somehow nicely) request that they
> >finish the work that they started...  Neither your institution nor any
> >other should take up the slack for this "unfinished business" (IMO).
> >                  --Jain Fletcher, UCLA
> >
> >On Fri, 9 Jul 1999 11:42:51 +0600 Margaretta Yarborough
> ><[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> >
> >> Point well taken, which is why this hasn't been a hot topic.  The fact
> >> remains, however, that this was a PCC record we encountered (minus an
> >> accompanying AR), for which we are supplying the missing authority record.
> >> Perhaps the best policy would be to ignore the BIBCO record's existence
> >> entirely in creating the NACO record!
> >>
> >> mjy
> >>
> >> ____________________________________________________________________
> >> Margaretta Yarborough                                    [log in to unmask]
> >> Monographic Cataloging
> >> Davis Library CB# 3914
> >> UNC-CH                                                (919) 962-9693
> >> Chapel Hill, NC  27514-8890                       fax (919) 962-4450
> >>
> >> On Fri, 9 Jul 1999, A. Ralph Papakhian wrote:
> >>
> >> > hi,
> >> > why would a pcc record require a new naco record?
> >> > i had thought that the primary defining feature of a
> >> > pcc record was that all authority work had been accomplished.
> >> > --r
> >> > A. Ralph Papakhian, Indiana University Music Library
> >> > Bloomington, IN 47405 812/855-2970 [log in to unmask]
> >> > co-owner: [log in to unmask]
> >
> >Jain Fletcher
> >Head, Monographic Cataloging Section
> >Research Library - UCLA
> >
> >
> =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
> Robert L. Maxwell
> Special Collections and Ancient Languages Cataloger
> 6428 Harold B. Lee Library
> Brigham Young University
> Provo, UT 84602
> (801) 378-5568
> [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

February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 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
August 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
October 2009
September 2009
August 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
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
January 2002
December 2001
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
August 2000
July 2000
June 2000
May 2000
April 2000
March 2000
February 2000
January 2000
December 1999
November 1999
October 1999
September 1999
August 1999
July 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
June 1998
May 1998
April 1998
March 1998
February 1998
January 1998
December 1997
November 1997
October 1997

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.LOC.GOV

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager