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
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
Amy H. Turner
Monographic Cataloger & Authority Control Coordinator
Duke University Libraries
Durham, NC 27708-0190 [log in to unmask]
"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.)
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
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
PCC should only be entered on quality
records because that "PCC" on an
OCLC record means that even Enhance
libraries cannot lock and replace
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.
Asian Materials Specialist/PCC Liaison
Western Washington University
Bellingham, WA 98225-9103