Dear all PCCers -- I second Kate's observation. Moving the process to OCLC or not might be a separate decision. In any event, while my record was not changed as in Adam's case, I recently had the experience of waiting 2 months from date of online proposal to point of LCSH distribution. And that was just to get a x-ref. added!
21st-century? I think not. Not even latter half of the 20th!
The whole issue of tinkering with notes is another thing. But certainly, there would be less messing with access points if those proposed access points were there for all to see in a more immediate environment. While it is a great suggestion to check the in-process file when one doesn't find the hdg., is that really the efficient direction we want to be going toward? [Just looking for the obvious answer here!] I guess it's just the only option right now.
On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 8:46 AM, Kate Harcourt <[log in to unmask]>
This exchange from Adam reminds me that there had been an agreement to move SACO record creation to OCLC. Most of this mess would have been avoided if a record had been in the national authority file as quickly as we are able to create name authority records. I'm really curious where we are in that transition? This has also come up as a concern in the ALCTS Implementation Task Group on the LCWG Report of which I am the chair. The lengthy SACO review process is seen as a barrier to the efficient sharing of bibliographic and authorities metadata.
Best wishes for the holidays to all!
On Mon, 22 Dec 2008, Antony Robert David Franks wrote:
Adam has come across a situation that has bedevilled us from the beginning of BIBCO. Once a record is sent forth into the world, any one with the appropriate authorization can do any thing to it--whether or not they're a PCC member.
Several years ago, there was a lengthy diatribe on Autocat about the poor quality of BIBCO records. Most of the records singled out for public dissection were from one member institution. The institution investigated the matter thoroughly and responded, in effect, that the original records in their local file were correct and had none of the faults singled out in the Autocat posting. The records had all been changed (mostly for the worse) since distribution.
As long as local catalogers cannot help themselves but revise, change, improve, or adapt to local practice, we'll have this.
This is an interesting situation that is worth some discussion. On
"Adam L. Schiff" <[log in to unmask]> 12/19/2008 8:13 PM >>>
November 12, we upgraded a record in OCLC to PCC status, and as part of
that we made a SACO subject proposal and a SACO classification proposal.
The record in question is OCLC 268662166. The title of the work is:
Capture-based aquaculture : global overview
We made a subject proposal to establish "Capture-based aquaculture" and at
the same time we proposed a new class number for this subject (SH137.33).
The proposals were approved on weekly list 50 and the subject authority
record was added to OCLC on Dec. 11.
Subsequent to our authenticating this record as a BIBCO record, another
PCC library changed the subject heading to "Cage aquaculture". I'm not
sure which library did this, because there are four PCC library codes
after ours in the 040 of the record. I assume that whoever made this
change did so because they didn't find the heading Capture-based
aquaculture in the OCLC authority file. It was still working its way
through the proposal/editorial process at LC. If the cataloger who
changed the heading to a much less specific or appropriate heading had
checked the LC Authorities web site (http://authorities.loc.gov/) they
would have seen that the subject heading on the record had been proposed
through SACO. They should not have altered it on the BIBCO record.
So... it would be good to remind all catalogers that if a record is
authenticated as a PCC record and they don't find a subject heading or
classification number that is on that record in the OCLC authority file or
on Classification Web, it's almost certainly because the heading or number
has been submitted through SACO. They can check on proposed subjects by
looking in Library of Congress Authorities.
I've changed the subject heading on OCLC #268662166 back to what it was
and should be: Capture-based aquaculture.
It also strikes me as odd that someone modified the 530 note that we had
on the record from "Also issued electronically via World Wide Web in PDF
format" (which is text that comes right out of AACR2) to the much less
specific "Also issued online". It's not clear to me why a cataloger would
change that note on a BIBCO record.
Happy Holidays everyone,
Adam L. Schiff
University of Washington Libraries
Seattle, WA 98195-2900
(206) 685-8782 fax
[log in to unmask]
Director, Original and Special Materials Cataloging
102 Butler Library
Columbia University Libraries
Richard C. Amelung, Ph. D.
Saint Louis University Law Library