Print

Print


The PCC Standing Committee on Training is beginning to work on a BIBCO
Participants' Manual. Before we get too far into it, I would like to
receive input from BIBCO participants about the desired content and
organization of such a manual and also about the scope.

We have been using the NACO manual as a model, as far as the organization
is concerned. Does that seem appropriate? Would participants prefer a
different approach? Obviously, the content will be very different from the
NACO manual. What specific topics would you like covered in the
BIBCO Participants' Manual?

For those of you who have seen a recent version of the BIBCO Training
Manual, what elements of that would you like to have included in the
Participants' Manual? What elements would you like to have excluded?

Our plan was to use many of the examples from the Training Manual in the
Participants' Manual. However, in the Training Manual, it was decided to
make the examples generic so that they could be used to train either an
RLIN or an OCLC institution. In the Participants' Manual, would you prefer
that we have a section on RLIN records and a section on OCLC records, with
the examples fully fleshed out for each?

Finally, how comprehensive should we try to make the BIBCO Participants'
Manual? Should we attempt to do anything like the CONSER Editing Guide or
the CONSER Cataloging Manual? The CONSER Editing Guide's "primary function
is to explain how one creates and tags an online record once the content
of the cataloging has been determined." The CONSER Cataloging Manual
"explains how one determines that content." Should something as
comprehensive as the CEG and the CCM be a second step, after a basic
BIBCO Participants' Manual is pulled together? Should it be attempted at
all for BIBCO?

We'd like this manual to be useful and your suggestions can help make it
that way.

Carol Hixson
Chair, PCC Standing Committee on Training