Print

Print


-----Original Message-----
From: Jimmie Lundgren
Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2003 11:08 AM
To: 'Thompson A Yee'
Subject: RE: [PCCTG1] draft of first part


Hi Tom and all,
        Thanks for the very helpful input. I simply was not thinking about
LCC when I wrote the first part, but it was my assumption that LCC proposals
would be equal to LCSH proposals in satisfying the quota. My next draft will
reflect this. So glad to have youall helping me write this!
        Thanks also for the information about PCC proposal mechanisms.
Jimmie

-----Original Message-----
From: Thompson A Yee [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2003 10:37 AM
To: [log in to unmask]; Jimmie Lundgren; [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCTG1] draft of first part


Jimmie et al.:

I see that Adam has already addressed our main issue:  LCC.  The first
sentence of the draft does not accurately represent the scope of the
SACO program.  The program also facilitates the contribution of
proposals for new and revised class numbers in LCC.  I think that fact
needs to be included in the background description of SACO.  Also, as
Adam notes, the issue of LCC proposals needs to be addressed in the
section on membership.  Do proposals for LCC "count" for membership?
Presumably, members will belong to the SACO program and not just to one
part of it.  I realize that there are participants like Cambridge, BL,
Northwestern, etc., who do not use LCC and focus only on LCSH, but there
also could be PCC libraries that are equally or primarily interested in
classification.

     Adam makes several comments and suggestions on possible
improvement of the proposal process for LCC.  We appreciate his comments
but that issue was really not part of this group's charge.  CPSO is
aware that the current proposal system has admitted constraints.  What's
prevented possible email or Web proposals now is that there's a primary
need to represent indention accurately.   LC is currently beginning to
plan for the development of an online proposal process for LCC.   I
think CPSO also has to be realistic and say that making proposals
through the utilities with MARC 21 records is not likely.  Neither OCLC
nor RLIN currently maintains LCC in MARC 21.

Tom

>>> [log in to unmask] 10/16/03 07:32AM >>>
Thanks very much to Adam and Hugh for their input. On sleeping on it I
had
also thought of some of these things. Also, it occurred to me that
there is
another implicit purpose to our report that needed to be addressed: I
think
we should put some more sparkle in the introduction. It is a good
opportunity to "sell" the accomplishments and potential of SACO,
especially
the membership option. The way I have written it so far is too much
simply
problem-solving oriented. What do the rest of you think?

I will plan to address some of these changes after I get the other
sections
rough draft out to you for comment, which I hope will be soon. The PCC
Policy Committee annual meetings are Nov. 6 and 7. Our charge said we
should
submit our report in time for consideration at that meeting, but I do
not
know how long in advance of that meeting the report should be available
to
permit its distribution and inclusion in the agenda. Basically there is
no
time to dawdle. Thanks and best regards,

Jimmie