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).
At 09:12 AM 7/9/99 -0700, you wrote:
> 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
Robert L. Maxwell
Special Collections and Ancient Languages Cataloger
6428 Harold B. Lee Library
Brigham Young University
Provo, UT 84602
[log in to unmask]