LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for BIBCO Archives


BIBCO Archives

BIBCO Archives


[email protected]


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

BIBCO Home

BIBCO Home

BIBCO  September 1999

BIBCO September 1999

Subject:

Bib. records with pre-AACR2 description

From:

Michael Kaplan <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Sat, 25 Sep 1999 18:18:41 +0001

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (179 lines)

I will be most interested to hear the Coop and LC view.  But I have to
express a bit of a contrarian viewpoint as far as AACR2 description is
concerned:  the moniker 'PCC' would be a great value in that it would
indicate that the access points are fully controlled.  That seems to me to
have every bit as much value as the description, and perhaps more, for
Recon records.  We have enough to do in terms of validating such records
without upgrading a descriptive code that was once valid and which in many
respects will demand changes more cosmetic than functional.

Personally, I would welcome knowing that the access points on older records
were valid.  If an 042 pcc is one way for us to help our community of users
by doing so, then I am all for it.  If there were another, non-PCC marker
that would convey the same information, then I would be willing to consider
that, but I'm not aware of one.

This doesn't go to our core functions, of course, and it is far from the
Timeliness value in our mission, but it is added value that cannot be
otherwise conveyed.

Michael Kaplan

At 10:38 AM 9/23/99 -0400, you wrote:
>Jennifer et al:
>        You have raised an important question, one which surely will arise
>again, and I have asked Ruta Penkiunas to consult with the Coop team and
>provide the LC view on the issue.  I think that Joan Schuitema should
>also speak to the question on behalf of the Standards Committee.
>Finally, once we have an answer articulated upon which there is general
>agreement, I recommend that the question/answer join the others already
>posted to BIBCO Introduction to Core Record document (under the PCC
>home-page).
>                                        Thanks again,
>                                            John
>
>Jennifer Bowen wrote:
>>
>> A couple of comments/clarifications:
>>
>> For this particular retrospective conversion project, we ARE working
with the
>> piece in hand.  I believe, actually, that the statement you quote below
in the
>> Enhance Outline is intended to caution Enhance libraries agains
enhancing records
>> in cases where they do not own the item AT ALL, especially since it is
followed by
>> a reminder that Enhance transactions appear on archival tapes.
>>
>> So, in response to Adam's suggestion about just Enhancing the records:
yes, we
>> are doing so when the situation warrants it, but we would just like to
go that
>> extra mile to make it a pcc record if that is allowed.  In any case, when
>> something official is decided on this issue, I'd like to see it documented
>> somewhere - perhaps in the core standards?
>>
>> Jennifer
>>
>> Alice F. Permenter wrote:
>>
>> > You said that you are encountering these records in the course of your
>> > retrospective conversion.  If you are an OCLC user, you should bear in
mind
>> > the following restriction, taken from the Enhance Training Outline at
>> > http://www.oclc.org/oclc/cataloging/enhance/outline.htm
>> >
>> > "8.  What should not be done with a Regular Enhance authorization.
>> >               a.Do NOT use Regular Enhance for routine bibliographic file
>> >                 maintenance. You should not replace records for items
you are
>> >                 not cataloging with piece in hand. (Remember that all
replace
>> >                 transactions appear on your archive tapes). Enhance was
>> >                 designed to fit into a normal cataloging workflow. There
>> > are too
>> >                 many cases of what appear superficially to be
"obvious" errors
>> >                 that turn out not to be errors at all. OCLC is very
>> > conservative in
>> >                 what it changes and requires supporting proof from the
item
>> >                 before changing elements of the description."
>> >
>> > Or, the following, taken from the Guidelines for National Level Enhance
>> > Participants at
http://www.oclc.org/oclc/cataloging/enhance/guidelines.htm
>> >
>> > "3.  DO NOT
>> >           . . .
>> >         d.  DO NOT use National Level Enhance for routine
>> >                bibliographic file maintenance. It was intended for
upgrade
>> >                work done with the piece in hand.  . . ."
>> >
>> > This would appear to address the broader issue of whether you should
>> > upgrade these records encountered during retro.
>> >
>> > Alice F. Permenter
>> > Head, Cataloging Dept.
>> > Howard-Tilton Memorial Library
>> > Tulane University
>> >
>> > At 11:41 AM 09/22/1999 -0700, you wrote:
>> > >My feeling is that in order to call a record a BIBCO record it should be
>> > >fully AACR2 in addition to having all access points under authority
>> > >control.  Since you correctly point out that upgrading the headings
>> > >without upgrading the description would still be doing a service, why
not
>> > >just consider these an ordinary OCLC enhance instead of BIBCO?
You'll get
>> > >your enhance credit for them but they wouldn't be coded as pcc records.
>> > >
>> > >**************************************
>> > >* Adam L. Schiff                     *
>> > >* Principal Cataloger                *
>> > >* University of Washington Libraries *
>> > >* Box 352900                         *
>> > >* Seattle, WA 98195-2900             *
>> > >* (206) 543-8409                     *
>> > >* (206) 685-8782 fax                 *
>> > >* [log in to unmask]           *
>> > >**************************************
>> > >
>> > >On Wed, 22 Sep 1999, Jennifer Bowen wrote:
>> > >
>> > >> BIBCO colleagues:
>> > >>
>> > >> As part of retrospective conversion, we encounter a significant number
>> > >> of bib. records in OCLC (for sound recordings, at the moment) that
could
>> > >>
>> > >> potentially be upgraded to BIBCO program records because all of the
>> > >> access points are covered by authority records.  If we want to do
this,
>> > >> must we upgrade the DESCRIPTION to AACR2 as well as the access points?
>> > >> Is this issue addressed in any PCC documentation or standard?
>> > >>
>> > >> I can tell you that if the answer is: "yes, you need to upgrade the
>> > >> description", we will just abandon the idea of upgrading the records
>> > >> altogether.  However, it seems to us that our verifying the access
>> > >> points and upgrading these to program records, even with leaving the
>> > >> description "as is", would be a useful service for other libraries.
>> > >>
>> > >> Anybody have an answer to this?
>> > >>
>> > >> Jennifer
>> > >>
>> > >> --
>> > >> Jennifer Bowen
>> > >> Head, Technical Services
>> > >> Sibley Music Library, Eastman School of Music
>> > >> 27 Gibbs St., Rochester, NY 14604
>> > >> (716) 274-1370      [log in to unmask]
>> > >>
>> > >
>> > >
>>
>> --
>> Jennifer Bowen
>> Head, Technical Services
>> Sibley Music Library, Eastman School of Music
>> 27 Gibbs St., Rochester, NY 14604
>> (716) 274-1370      [log in to unmask]
>
>--
>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>^^  John D. Byrum, Jr.                                    ^^
>^^  Chief, Regional & Cooperative Cataloging Division     ^^
>^^  Library of Congress LM-535                            ^^
>^^  Washington, D.C.  20540-4380        LL                ^^
>^^                                      LL    CCC         ^^
>^^  (202) 707-6511                      LL  CC   CC       ^^
>^^  FAX (202) 707-2824                  LLLLLLLL          ^^
>^^                                          CC   CC       ^^
>^^  [log in to unmask]                              CCC         ^^
>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>

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

March 2024
January 2024
November 2023
October 2023
September 2023
August 2023
July 2023
June 2023
May 2023
April 2023
March 2023
February 2023
January 2023
November 2022
October 2022
July 2022
June 2022
May 2022
April 2022
March 2022
February 2022
January 2022
November 2021
October 2021
July 2021
June 2021
May 2021
April 2021
February 2021
October 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
November 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
January 2017
December 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 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
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
September 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
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
May 2004
March 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
April 2003
March 2003
January 2003
December 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
January 2002
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
July 2000
June 2000
May 2000
April 2000
March 2000
February 2000
January 2000
December 1999
October 1999
September 1999
August 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

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.LOC.GOV

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager