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
"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
many cases of what appear superficially to be "obvious" errors
that turn out not to be errors at all. OCLC is very
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
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 Bowen
>> Head, Technical Services
>> Sibley Music Library, Eastman School of Music
>> 27 Gibbs St., Rochester, NY 14604
>> (716) 274-1370 [log in to unmask]