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!
> 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]
Head, Monographic Cataloging Section
Research Library - UCLA