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 ^^
>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>
|