If the BIBCO record has its headings controlled in OCLC when the record is created (or later), I assume that means that if the authority record is later changed the matching heading in the bib record IS changed, is it not? I realize controlling headings isn’t one of the requirements for BIBCO, but I always control the headings and think it is good practice. Controlling the headings is an excellent way to make sure the BIBCO records are “kept in synch with the authority records.” It’s also a convenient way to ensure that all the needed authority work has (or has not) been done.
I don’t agree that “the BIBCO process never worked.” I think it does work well. There used to be the problem of two separate databases (RLIN and OCLC) containing different (and sometimes duplicate but different) BIBCO records, but that problem has been solved with the merger of RLIN and OCLC.
Robert L. Maxwell
Head, Special Collections and Metadata Catalog Dept.
6728 Harold B. Lee Library
Brigham Young University
Provo, UT 84602
From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Lasater, Mary Charles
Sent: Monday, May 12, 2008 1:13 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Horrible record [going off on the tangent of Enc lvl]
A comment I heard a few years ago has made me feel that coding a record 'PCC' is counter-productive. One cataloger of A-V material indicated that she always contributes at the K level because then others can add to her records.
My problem with BIBCO records is that I may create that 'perfect' record today with matching authority records and tomorrow someone will change one of those authority records and that BIBCO coding won't mean anything since the matching heading did not get changed. BFM only went one way... to LC, never to other contributing libraries so in my humble opinion the BIBCO process never worked.
I support Authority control in many ways and hope we can encourage more participation but until our BIBCO records are kept in synch with the authority records, the only use for the PCC coding is to send these through copy cataloging.
Enhance should be relaxed and it should be made 'easy' to correct errors without having to evaluate the entire record.
My very personal 2 cents,
From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging on behalf of Amy H Turner
Sent: Mon 5/12/2008 9:50 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] Horrible record [going off on the tangent of Enc lvl]
I agree that there should not be a stigma attached to K records, and that there are advantages to inputting a record that can be upgraded by any library. It is clear that the various Enc lvls are inconsistently applied, with some libraries and catalogers taking pride in inputting only the higher levels, and others having a philosophical attachment to K or 4, even when the requirements for I or blank are met. At Duke, we no longer use Enc lvl as a criteria for sorting records, because it is not a reliable indicator of completeness or authority.
At the BIBCO OpCo meeting, Cynthia Whitacre from OCLC led a discussion of making the Enhance program less restrictive. I threw out a wild idea of also making the requirements for inputting records a bit more restrictive, so there would be fewer messy records to clean up. On reflection, here is a refinement of that idea. What if libraries with full level authorization could input only K, 4 and lower, and could replace those levels (as they can now)? Enhance libraries could input and replace I and lower; national level enhance libraries all levels (as now). Enhance and PCC libraries could take a special responsibility for the database as a whole, with the elimination of the restriction on editing records not held. OCLC could work to expand the enhance program, PCC to expand our membership. WorldCat could become truly a world catalog, with membership taking more responsibility for ongoing maintenance.
Amy H. Turner
Monographic Cataloger & Authority Control Coordinator
Duke University Libraries
Durham, NC 27708-0190
[log in to unmask]
Wayne Richter <[log in to unmask]>
05/12/2008 09:16 AM
Ted Gemberling wrote:
<<I think another way to approach this matter would be to say that more
records should be K level. And maybe that's one of the problems
associated with the PCC program, that it puts a subtle pressure on
catalogers to claim more competency than they really have. In
retrospect, I realize I should have made that modern Greek record a K,
so that a more knowledgeable person could revise it easily, though I did
try to be careful and thorough.=20
I think there's a sort of stigma attached to a K-level record: you're
not a "real cataloger" if you enter records like that. But we need to
create K-level records if we're working in an area where we don't have
I think Ted has hit the nail on the head. I have entered "K" level
records when I can't complete all of the authority work (requires
extensive research, time constraints, vital information missing--there
are many reasons).
I know other libraries do this. I have found many Harvard "K" records
far better than many "I"s and "blanks". The descriptive cataloging is
usually superb and the only thing missing is that not all authority work
has been completed.
There shouldn't be any stigma attached to saying "I don't have enough
information to do this right at this time." It seems to me that pcc
should allow "K" equivalent records. I think it would speed up workflow
as well as allowing someone who did have the information at hand to
upgrade the record.
Asian Materials Specialist/PCC Liaison
Western Washington University
Bellingham WA 98225-9103