Print

Print


Pat makes a very important point here and one that I like to remind our
catalogers.  Making the decision as to whether an item is a "candidate"
for BIBCO is priority so that catalogers are not using the time to "make
it" BIBCO.

Priscilla

Priscilla Williams
Head, Authorities and Metadata Quality Unit
BIBCO Coordinator
University of Florida
300 Smathers Library
P. O. Box 117007
Gainesville, FL 32611
352-273-2732
352-392-7365 fax
[log in to unmask]      

-----Original Message-----
From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
Behalf Of Patricia Williams
Sent: Monday, August 25, 2008 5:05 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: [PCCLIST] FW: [PCCLIST] BIBCO minimal level record--was PCC
Series Policy

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


-----Original Message-----
From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
Behalf Of Wayne Richter
Sent: Monday, August 25, 2008 3:17 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] BIBCO minimal level record--was PCC Series Policy

Kate Harcourt wrote in answer to Renett Davis:
<<I strongly disagree that there isn't interest in one BIBCO record
along
the lines of the CONSER standard record. I have heard the idea promoted
in numerous groups and it certainly fits the LC Working Group
recommendation to increase the efficiency of bibliographic record
production and maintenance. We should be concerned only with creating
records that are sufficient for access and identification. As a BIBCO
trainer and a head of cataloging, it seems harder and harder these days
to rationalize requiring and training catalogers to make core/full
distinctions, especially when they catalog both monographs and
serials.>>

I believe that a BIBCO minimal level record proposal is one which should
be strongly supported for various reasons. If one is concerned with both
database quality and workflow there are bound to be cases where
cataloger's judgment indicates that "I have neither the time nor
resources to fully do justice to what I have in hand" and the option
should be available to enter a high quality minimal level record. The
next person who encounters that record may be able to convert it to a
full one with little effort because of locally available expertise or
other resources.
Are there others who think the time has come to recognize the need for
BIBCO minimal records?

Wayne Richter
Asian Materials Specialist/PCC Liaison
The Libraries
Western Washington University
Bellingham, WA 98225-9103