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]
> =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
>