Mary Charles noted:

> BUT AS A SACO participant I think it is my responsibility to notify
> LC when I encounter this type of challenge.

With which I'd agree. But none of the PCC programs *prevents* members
shirking a challenge. There are subject proposals that we've simply shied
away from spending time on - we couldn't have done a "good" job without
finding more time that we could spare at the time. And the same goes for
name headings on occasion. So whilst I agree it's a reponsibility to try to
"notify" LC when such challenges, I don't think it can be regarded as a
"breach" to fail to do the necessary work oneself. Clearly the significance
of this is partly ties up with the method of contribution/reporting - if
we're in a "dialogue" sort of situation then the participant can bring ideas
and questions without having all of the answers. If we're looking to "direct
contribution" it has to be "all or nothing", just as it is with NACO (i.e.
there may be scope for some behind-the-scenes dialogue, but ultimately it's
the participant who has to get on and do it - or not).

> I am not sure that having to prepare a form is really the best way of
> approaching the problem.

That's a good point that we'll need to bear in mind for future weeks. If we
look at some sort of "direct" input of SACO proposals, what about "change
requests"? Some of these may be suitable for a "direct" approach, but the
sort of thing Mary Charles describes is better with non-formal reporting and

> "Psychology" ended up being changed to Body language. I didn't
> propose the heading change... I just presented the problem.

And whilst I'm sure Mary Charles, like the rest of us, took that particular
task as far as she felt able, is that the point where the "formal"
"participant-based" approach becomes the less formal "this program is open
to anyone with something to contribute" sort of thing. Anyone should be able
to tackle CPSO on issues without having answers, but should it be a
participant's responsibility to try to deal with as much as possible

I suspect there's going to be a "grey area" (do you folk spell that "gray"?)
where, as described, some issues require a good bit of discussion, and the
actual resolution is only a small part of the overall process.

> So how do the rest of you feel about our responsibility to report
> LCSH problems? Is it a responsibility and an eventual benefit of
> SACO? Or should we leave it up to AUTOCAT to notify LC? Is
> there some mechanism for giving us credit for the work we do? Or
> does it matter?       Can we report problems without providing the
> answer, since the answer (heading) may change anyway?

Taking the first question mark as #0 -

#1. Yes

#2. As an alternative avenue for non-members that's probably always going to
be needed

#3. If I'm guessing correctly that "changed NARs" is derived from 040 $d,
then I don't see why, even if CPSO or Coop were the people actually keying
the changes, your local institution code couldn't be used in the 040 - this
wouldn't be based on a strict scientific assessment of the percentage of
your time versus LC's that went into the record, but simply a (subjective)
recognition of how much the SACO participant had contributed. LC staff have
their own codes in 9XX fields, I think (certainly do in bibs and NARs), so
they can probably get their personal "credit" some other way.

#4. I'd suggest this lies outside SACO as part of a stream that implies less
commitment to the outcome on anyone's part, either the proposer or LC. But
others may disagree.


Hugh Taylor
Head of Cataloguing, Cambridge University Library
West Road, Cambridge CB3 9DR, England

email: [log in to unmask]   fax: +44 (0)1223 333160
phone: +44 (0)1223 333069 (with voicemail) or
phone: +44 (0)1223 333000 (ask for pager 036)