Print

Print


On Mon, 14 Aug 2000, Hugh Taylor wrote:

[Jacqueline Byrd's original question about NACO BFM reporting
requirements in the post-MUMS age omitted]

>
> ... There's an implicit
> - and mistaken - assumption in virtually all of the NACO documentation
> that people will be doing their searching for "eligible" LC bib records
> on one or other of the utilities, and not searching LC's own system
> directly. This wasn't the case with MUMS, and isn't the case with
> Voyager. As you rightly point out, however, it's currently more
> time-consuming to generate a list of the LCCNs of the records on which
> BFM is required with Voyager in place than it was with MUMS. Simply
> because one has to call up each full record individually.

Perhaps even more to the point, it is also more difficult to discern which
records in the ILS are considered eligible for reporting.  The absence of
"[old catalog heading]" next to a heading does not mean that LC wants you
to report BFM for it, as I understand it.  If the record in question is an
OCLC replacement
record that overlaid a record that was in the old PREMARC file, it still
doesn't "count" unless it has been redistributed by LC, e.g has a numeric
or blank encoding level.  The headings on these records do not have "[old
catalog heading]" as a label in the index display.  Divining encoding
levels in the ILS is difficult because it's part of a character string,
rather than a box no. as in MUMS.  With some reluctance, I've taken to
doing OCLC searching for name headings simply because it's easier to
divine what "counts."  With name-title headings, I'll still use the ILS
because of the difficulties in searching such headings in OCLC when they
exist as added entries.

Mark Scharff, Music Cataloger
Gaylord Music Library
Washington University in St. Louis
[log in to unmask]