Print

Print


To the PCC community:

This message reviews actions and discussions regarding the new LC serials
cataloging work flow from the point of view of the PoCo. It is being sent
to the PCC list as well as the CONSER list.

Maureen Landry, head of SRD, announced LC's new serials copy cataloging
work flow to CONSER members in September. According to the announcement
(<http://www.loc.gov/acq/conser/new-docs/announceLCcopycat.pdf>http://www.loc.gov/acq/conser/new-docs/announceLCcopycat.pdf),
all copy cataloging for Roman language serials would be performed by
cataloging technicians and the technicians would be working with
unauthenticated as well as authenticated OCLC records. Formerly, the only
records handled by technicians for copy cataloging were records previously
authenticated by another CONSER
library.

The focus of LC's new serials copy cataloging work flow is on providing
sufficient access to, and identification of, the serial. Name and subject
headings are verified and authorities are established if needed, but
generally only obvious or egregious errors that impede access and
identification are corrected. The records contain the authentication code
lccopycat. This code helps flag the records within the utility databases
and provides a way for institutions to set up a separate work flow for
these records if they want to.

Also important, the coding means that the records are authenticated. When a
CONSER library authenticates a record, elements are added that cause the
record to be sent to the LC Cataloging Distribution Services as part of the
CONSER database for further distribution to subscribers. Authentication
also implies that the record has been reviewed and meets current CONSER
standards.

Some CONSERlist participants reacted strongly to the announcement, pointing
out that SRD had developed its new work flow without consulting CONSER
members fully about implications for the shared database. They felt that
insufficient information had been provided about the content of lccopycat
records and whether lccopycat records meet existing standards. They also
expressed concern about potential problems that might appear in some
unauthenticated records and about the level of authentication the code
lccopycat represented in the context of the CONSER
database.

As comments were received, SRD began to incorporate changes to its
procedures, although the working drafts of its procedures have not been
made available on the CONSER Web site yet.

An overview of the controversy was given to the PoCo in early October, and
the topic was added to the agenda for its November meeting. At that
meeting, Maureen Landry presented a summary s of the new SRD work flow. She
also talked  about the training and mentoring SRD technicians undergo and
the safeguards put in place to assure that complicated or problem material
is handled by a professional cataloger.

PoCo voted to endorse SRD's new work flow and the inclusion of lccopycat
records in the CONSER database. PoCo members felt that adding these records
to the CONSER database would benefit libraries using the utilities and
CONSER database subscribers all over the world. It is important to
recognize that pressures on our cataloging environments and budgets require
experimentation with new approaches to our work. This recognition was part
of the foundations upon which the PCC has been built. My view, which I
believe was shared by the other PoCo members, was that SRD's new serials
cataloging work flow attempted to respond to budget pressures in a
responsible way that has potential to benefit the entire cataloging community.

At our November meeting the PoCo did not discuss  the specific
concerns  raised on the CONSERlist. However, PoCo has had some e-mail
discussions about this topic since then. With the good vision of hindsight,
we regret that the new copycat work flow was introduced before it could be
vetted adequately by the CONSER community. Although we continue to support
the inclusion of lccopycat records in the CONSER database, we also
recognize that the concerns of CONSER catalogers about the SRD's new copy
cataloging work flow are important, and that those concerns still need to
be addressed. We cannot change history, but we hope we can learn from it.

Les Hawkins, CONSER coordinator, has recommended a way to address the
concerns and also learn some lessons for the future. Les has recommended a
study that will allow CONSER members to be involved in evaluating records
that have been created in the new workflow and to make recommendations to
the SRD on the process. His recommendation is available on the Web at
<http://www.loc.gov/acq/conser/study-lccopycat.pdf>http://www.loc.gov/acq/conser/study-lccopycat.pdf.
The PoCo leadership has endorsed this recommendation and we support this
effort. We feel confident that it will help renew the spirit of cooperation
that has long been the foundation of the CONSER program.

Roxanne Sellberg
Chair, PCC Policy Committee


.