Print

Print


I agree with Adam's take on this. The visioning exercise wasn't just
directed at OCLC, although the OCLC redesign is what got the whole idea
started. I understood it to be that it was considered a good thing to
explore making SACO contributions through a mechanism similar to the way
we contribute NACO records. Those records are not just contributed through
OCLC. The PCC has tried to be inclusive and to look at ways to make
processes more efficient. I support looking into automated means via the
various utilities as one way to make the SACO process more efficient. That
doesn't mean that LC would have to give up editorial control.

Carol Hixson

On Mon, 29 Jan 2001, Adam Schiff wrote:

> I think the point of the discussion about inputting SACO proposals through
> OCLC, was that folks are already used to creating and submitting name
> authorities in the utilities, and there is a mechanism to send these to
> Coop. Cat. staff for review before they are added to the NAF.
>
> The idea was that some folks would like to employ a similar mechanism to
> key in subject proposals through OCLC and then submit them to LC to go
> through the editorial process.  I think this has several advantages,
> particular on the LC end:
>
> 1) the proposal will already be in an electronic form that can be easily
> exported into LC's online system, which will save rekeying
>
> 2) Coop. Cat. staff reviewing the proposals before sending on to editorial
> review in CPSO will be able to easily make changes to the proposal once it
> has been exported to the LC system
>
> 3) if there are significant problems with a proposal, Coop. Cat. staff
> could return the record to the library that proposed it with comments on
> it and the library could then redo or modify the proposal and resubmit it
>
> 4) it would allow for automatic generation of subject authority records
> from bibliographic records via the kind of macro now used for
> names. (Obviously much more editing and additional information would
> usually be necessary on the subject authority records, but a macro would
> save some rekeying of author, title information at least and could
> generate some types of references as well.)
>
> I'm sure there are other benefits I haven't thought of yet.
>
> I don't think any of us envisioned creating subject authorities through a
> utility that went directly into the authority file without editorial
> review.  LC would retain review and final validation and distribution of
> all subject authorities.  In other words, while there would be a "submit"
> function that would work for subject authorities, the "add" and
> "lock/replace" functions that are used for names would not be possible for
> subjects.
>
> I think whatever steps we can take to streamline the SACO submission
> process so that more libraries feel that it is worthwhile to do are good
> things to do.  We wouldn't want to mandate submission through a utility
> (or through a Web form even), but I would like to see this as one option.
>
> **************************************
> * 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]           *
> **************************************
>