"Byrd, Jacqueline Jo" wrote:
>
> Do NACO libraries still need to report to LC the LCCN for every LC
> bibliographic record that needs to be changed as a result of NACO work? Now
> that we need to view each record to determine the LCCN in a web-based
> catalog, this can be very time consuming if there are many records and/or if
> the response time is slow. Is there any way around this?
>
> Thanks
> Jacqueline Jo Byrd
> Head, Area Studies Cataloging Section
> Technical Services Department
> Indiana University Libraries
> 1320 E. 10th St.
> Bloomington, IN 47405
> Phone: 812-855-4310
> FAX: 812-855-7933
> email: [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
Requirements for reporting BFM are posted at the following URL:
http://lcweb.loc.gov/catdir/cpso/nacobfm.html
and there's a separate FAQ dealing with "from old catalog" headings at
http://lcweb.loc.gov/catdir/pcc/oldcatfaq.html
Without re-reading the whole lot, I think it's the case that nothing has
changed (yet) - at least so far as the _requirements_ imposed on NACO
partners are concerned. What _has_ changed, as your message suggests, is
the environment in which that reporting takes place. 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.
--
Hugh Taylor
Head of Cataloguing, Cambridge University Library
West Road, Cambridge CB3 9DR, England
email: [log in to unmask] fax: +44 (0)1223 339973
phone: +44 (0)1223 333069 (with voicemail) or
phone: +44 (0)1223 333000 (ask for pager 036)
