Print

Print


Renette, my understanding of OCLC's restrictions on replacing records is 
that there are three levels:

For most changes:
National level records (LC, NLC, UKM, other PCC are all equal in this 
regard) can  be replaced only with a national enhance authorization.
Level I can be replaced by a regular Enhance authorization.
Level K can be replaced by a full authorization.

However, database enrichment changes are an exception.   With full level 
authorization, you can make these changes to any record. 

I do not understand what this has to do with the advantages of another 
level of cataloging, and the practical implications of that level.   Would 
minimal level differ from full and core only in the absence of a 
controlled series statement?  Or might it also lack classification and 
call numbers, like LC minimal level?   Would you expect libraries to use 
it in sorting types of copy?   I gather from discussions on this list and 
AUTOCAT that Elvl is not much used in sorting because the distinctions are 
so blurred.   Some use the distinction between I and K as an indication of 
quality or completeness, and some always use K because anyone can replace 
it.   For BIBCO, some (including me) have embraced core on philosophical 
principles and use it even when the record is indistinguishable from a 
full record (often) and others have the same preference for full.  It has 
been suggested that the distinction between core and full be eliminated 
because it is more trouble than it is worth.  If we merged core and full, 
and introduced a minimal level, would the minimal level be like the old 
core, minus series authority control?   If so, your proposal would be a 
rewording of Option C, which the Steering Committee has already rejected.

I think that eliminating the 440 makes it easy to distinguish between a 
pcc record with series authority control and one without, and that we 
don't need another encoding level for this purpose.

Amy


Amy H. Turner
Monographic Cataloger & Authority Control Coordinator
Duke University Libraries
Durham, NC   27708-0190
[log in to unmask]



Renette Davis <[log in to unmask]> 
Sent by: Program for Cooperative Cataloging <[log in to unmask]>
08/27/2008 11:13 AM
Please respond to
Program for Cooperative Cataloging <[log in to unmask]>


To
[log in to unmask]
cc

Subject
Re: [PCCLIST] FW: [PCCLIST] BIBCO minimal level record--was PCC Series 
Policy






I have a question regarding changing PCC records. In OCLC's Response to 
the Library of Congress Decision [regarding series] - available at 
http://www.oclc.org/news/announcements/announcement191.htm - it says"
 
"OCLC has changed existing Database Enrichment capabilities (
http://www.oclc.org/support/tips/worldcat/tip7.htm) so that fields 440, 
490, and 8XX can be added, changed or deleted by any user with a 
full-level cataloging authorization. This allows cataloging users to, for 
example, change series treatment in LC records to match existing authority 
records. Users will receive a Database Enrichment credit for such changes. 
Implemented July 9, 2006."
 
Does this also include PCC records? If not (and if it cannot be changed to 
include PCC records) then I agree that minimal level for BIBCO is not the 
way to go. However, if it does include PCC records (or if it could be 
changed to include PCC records) then I would like to offer the following 
comments, in the hope that there is still some room for negotiation 
regarding this decision.
 
Although I see problems with a minimal level record for BIBCO, similar to 
the minimal level record for CONSER that was described in the 
Recommendations of the PCC Ad Hoc Series Review Task Force, if I had to 
make a choice between series authority work being optional on all PCC 
bibliographic records (as specified in the PCC Steering Committee's 
document) or having a separate level for those records where series 
authority work has not been done, I would prefer the latter.
 
I think this would help alleviate the objections that the Steering 
Committee had to the Recommendations of the PCC Ad Hoc Series Review Task 
Force. It would not conflict with PCC strategic directions aimed at 
broadening PCC membership, nationally and internationally. It would allow 
monograph records created by the Library of Congress to continue being 
coded as PCC records. It would not conflict with the findings of the final 
report of the Joint Task Group on International Participation. It would 
result in a unified PCC policy for CONSER and BIBCO. It would also be in 
line with what the PCC membership at the CONSER/BIBCO meeting at ALA 
Midwinter in January 2008 clearly indicated. A straw poll at that meeting 
showed that 32 were in favor of Option A (keeping the status quo), 20 were 
in favor of Option C (the compromise with the minimal level record for 
serials), and only 4 were in favor of Option B (which is what the PCC 
Steering Committee has now decided will be the PCC policy.) 
 
Renette
 
-----Original Message-----
From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On 
Behalf Of Wayne Richter
Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2008 9:01 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] FW: [PCCLIST] BIBCO minimal level record--was PCC 
Series Policy
 
Sue Wartzok wrote:
<<Hear! Hear! We are an OCLC Enhance library but not BIBCO. We see lots of
PCC records that we'd like to be able to lock and correct ... but we
can't do that. The truth of the matter is that qualifying for OCLC
Enhance status was rigorous. Consequently, I have no doubt that our
Principal Monographic Cataloger could qualify for BIBCO. But we are so
short staffed that we can't spare the time.
 
PCC should only be entered on quality records because that "PCC" on an
OCLC record means that even Enhance libraries cannot lock and replace
the record.>>
 
WR. I agree wholeheartedly. We were going to apply for Enhance status but 
in reading the documentation found that Enhance libraries cannot correct 
"pcc" and those are most of the "noncorrectable" records we find which 
need correcting.
 
 
Patricia Williams wrote:
> What's the point of a minimal level BIBCO record?  When I find myself 
with "neither the time nor resources to fully do justice to what I have in 
hand," I simply make the record level K in Connexion, and don't mark it 
PCC.  Just because I work in a library that is a PCC member does not mean 
that everything I catalog has to be coded as PCC.  The same can be done by 
any other other PCC cataloger, including the Library of Congress.
> 
> Pat Williams
> University of Chicago Library
 
WR. This is what I believe most BIBCO libraries do and I only wish that it 
was the case with all BIBCO libraries. Then, indeed, there would be no 
need for minimal level BIBCO records. We are not a BIBCO library but we 
input level K records when, for example, all of the authority work cannot 
be completed and I very much appreciate the many libraries doing the same 
thing.
 
Wayne Richter
Asian Materials Specialist/PCC Liaison
The Libraries
Western Washington University
Bellingham, WA 98225-9103