Print

Print


I believe in simplification of cataloging rules.  I have been flamed by 
people who think that "simplification" means "dumbing down" and that every 
last RI is necessary for good bibliographic control.   But simple is not 
the same is easy, and accurate bibliographic description and good, concise 
subject analysis will never be easy.   Sometimes the rules take on a life 
of their own, and distract attention from true aim of our work.  Mental 
energy spent deliberating finer points of the rules could be redirected to 
analyzing the intellectual content of what we are cataloging. 

I believe that the core record contains everything needed for quality 
cataloging, and as a "floor" it also allows the addition of more elements. 
  Every full record in OCLC could be coded as core, though not every core 
record could be coded as full.   So, much time is saved by coding 
everything core, rather than making the distinction.   Even more time is 
saved in training by teaching only the core standard. 

IMHO, the main difference between core and full are fewer notes and more 
room for judgement in core, and these are both good things.   I would like 
for PCC to embrace core as its only standard, but I don't think that is 
likely.

I was restraining myself from ranting about this, but that was a direct 
question :-)

Amy

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



"A. Ralph Papakhian" <[log in to unmask]> 
Sent by: Program for Cooperative Cataloging <[log in to unmask]>
08/29/2008 10:57 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






On Fri, 29 Aug 2008, Amy H Turner wrote:
...
> 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.

hi,
i curious to know what philosophical principles are involved in using core
level even when the record is indistinguishable from a full record.
i don't understand why this would be a matter of philosophy nor why a 
full record would intentionally be coded as core.

--ralph papakhian (cook music library, indiana university)