Dear BIBCO folks,
My fingers slipped when I corresponded with Pat. I thought I said
that the document in question "Resource records used as copy"
is strictly informational and DOES NOT APPLY to BIBCO partners, but when
I reread my message I noticed that forgot to type in the NOT!!
However, the answer Pat gave that to keep or not keep the 653s is a
local decision is truly correct and records with these subject heading
may be labelled PCC. If in OCLC the Enhance guidelines confirm keeping
the 653s then that is another reason to do so.
Sorry for the confusion.
Pat Williams wrote:
> Marty, et al.,
> Since your question to the list arrived on the last day of my tour of duty
> as the BIBCO Operations Committee responder to questions, I am replying to
> your query about foreign language subject headings in PCC records. I
> consulted with Ana Cristan about the LC practice in the document you cited
> below, and she confirmed that it does in fact apply to BIBCO libraries.
> Since the document describes what types of records LC considers copy
> cataloging as opposed to original cataloging, that distinction seems to be
> the crux of the matter. If you consider the vendor record you are
> upgrading to be original cataloging, then you should remove the extraneous
> subjects in accordance with LC practice. If the record is considered copy
> cataloging, you may retain the subjects. This is a local decision for the
> individual BIBCO library. However, I also checked the "Guidelines for
> National Level Enhance Participants," which Jay Weitz distributed in
> December 1998. Section C, 3, c states: "DO NOT remove information (for
> instance, added entries or database enrichments) from a record unless the
> information is in error." It seems to me that these two sets of
> guidelines may conflict and further clarification is needed for those PCC
> catalogers who do their work in OCLC. At Chicago, we have followed the
> OCLC enhance guidelines pretty strictly for PCC upgrades and have retained
> any information which we found in existing records, but this may be in
> conflict with the LC guidelines. It would be helpful to hear what other
> libraries have been doing in this regard.
> Pat Williams
> Asst. Head, Cataloging Dept.
> University of Chicago Library
> At 11:36 AM 8/31/99 -0500, you wrote:
> >I am cataloging a Catalan-language work with an OCLC database record
> >created by Iberbook Int. in Madrid with four 653 fields (e.g., Iglesia
> >Cat'olica $a Historia $a Siglo XI). I want to upgrade this record to PCC
> >level. It had been my understanding that we should leave subject headings
> >in other languages in such records together with LCSH headings that we
> >add, but a new document at http://lcweb.loc.gov/catdir/pcc/lccatstats.html
> >says: "These records will only contain subject headings from LCSH; other
> >subject headings are deleted." This statement reflects LC policy, but can
> >we/should we leave these fields in BIBCO cataloging? What are others
> > IIIIII
> > II Marty Joachim
> > UU II UU Principal Cataloger
> > UU II UU Indiana University Libraries
> > UU II UU Bloomington, IN 47405
> > UU II UU [log in to unmask]
> > UUUIIUUU (812) 855-4263
> > II FAX (812) 855-7933
> > IIIIII