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 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]>

[log in to unmask]
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 - it says"
"OCLC has changed existing Database Enrichment capabilities ( 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.)
-----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