Print

Print


Have a good weekend Hugh.

Adam  (still working, 2:23 pm Friday here) ;-)

**************************************
* 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]           *
**************************************

On Fri, 17 Oct 2003, Hugh Taylor wrote:

> With one exception I agree with all of Susan's comments - and am
> particularly grateful that she remembered what a pain in the neck
> diacritics currently are (not sure *how* I came to miss that myself!).
>
> > 2. In the section Membership Benefits, in the paragraph starting
> > "Utility-based submission.."
> > Do you want to put in a mention that CPSO would retain final editorial
> > review and would
> > then produce the records in the utility?  (I think it's good to emphasize
> > this.)
>
> I agree with the first half of this comment, but feel the workflow aspect
> is too specific -  I'd have expected CPSO would want these records, once
> they've been signed off by the Member, to be worked on (by CPSO, and maybe
> Coop - it doesn't matter) inside LC's Voyager system, rather than on the
> relevant utility. In any case, it's a level of detail we don't need to go
> into in our report, I feel. But the rest is all good to my eyes.
>
> Sorry to make you folks feel envious - esp. Adam, way out on the west of my
> map - but I'm done for this week, and am heading home. Have a good weekend,
> all of you.
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Hugh
> --
> Hugh Taylor
> Head, Collection Development and Description
> 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)
>
> Susan Summer wrote:
> >
> > Jimmie and others:
> >
> > I have some comments on the draft sent out yesterday.  Rather than
> > interspersing
> > them in the text, I'll note the places.  I hope that's OK.
> >
> > Starting at the beginning--
> >
> > 1. In the paragraph starting "The mandate for this work..." where we talk
> > about the
> > Charles Fenly report, how about "which examined the SACO program workflow in
> > some detail and outlined possible improvements."
> >
> > 2. In the section Membership Benefits, in the paragraph starting
> > "Utility-based submission.."
> > Do you want to put in a mention that CPSO would retain final editorial
> > review and would
> > then produce the records in the utility?  (I think it's good to emphasize
> > this.)
> >
> > 3. In the section Web-based training - we mention that this could
> > incorporate some of the
> > materials developed for the in-person workshops and some of the material
> > from the SACO
> > Participants' Manual.  I would also add that the web-based training could
> > incorporate some
> > of the valuable material already on the PCC SACO webpage, such as the FAQ
> > and the list
> > of web resources, etc.
> >
> > 4. In the next session, Processes -- Where we have some of the drawbacks
> > listed ("It does not
> > permit saving..."), I would also add that it requires diacritics to be
> > written out such as [acute].
> > And then later in that paragraph, being able to enter diacritics should be
> > listed as an advantage
> > of utility-based submission.
> >
> > 5. And don't you want Jimmie Lundgren, University of Florida, Chair to be
> > the first name on
> > the list?!
> >
> > (I'll be out of the office Oct. 20-23 but will try to check email if possible.)
> >
> > Susan
> >
> > At 12:57 PM 10/16/2003 -0400, you wrote:
> > >Dear SACO Task Group,
> > >         If you haven't had time to review my previous messages yet, please
> > >toss them out and respond to the draft below. It is continuing to evolve
> > >with your help, and I hope to hear something from each of you in the near
> > >future so that we may still meet the deadline. Especially, please tell me if
> > >there are parts of the charge the report fails to address or if you disagree
> > >with anything or feel we can express it in a better way. I really hate
> > >criticism, but I much prefer that it happen before we send it as a final
> > >report and we have to live with it forever :-)
> > >         Thanks and best regards,
>