 |
 |
Kate and others, While I'd love to see expedited creation of SACO proposals in OCLC, I think we should also thank the folks at LC who are getting proposed headings into http://authorities.loc.gov within a day or two or three of submission. At least we have a chance of finding the proposed heading in one of our commonly-available environments. Building the topical hierarchies is an editorial process. Categories need to be analyzed for adherence of precedence, procedures, and policies. Perhaps a way can be found to fast-track headings of named instances, e.g., buildings, imaginary cities, cartoon characters, pets and other animals, types of cars. Sherman Clarke New York University Libraries [log in to unmask] ----- Original Message ----- From: Kate Harcourt <[log in to unmask]> Date: Monday, December 22, 2008 10:00 am Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] Reminder: check LC Authorities for proposed subjects To: [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! > > Kate > > 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. > > > >>>> "Adam L. Schiff" <[log in to unmask]> 12/19/2008 8:13 PM >>> > > This is an interesting situation that is worth some discussion. On > > 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 Schiff > > > > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > Adam L. Schiff > > Principal Cataloger > > University of Washington Libraries > > Box 352900 > > Seattle, WA 98195-2900 > > (206) 543-8409 > > (206) 685-8782 fax > > [log in to unmask] > > http://faculty.washington.edu/~aschiff > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > > > > > Kate Harcourt > Director, Original and Special Materials Cataloging > 102 Butler Library > Columbia University Libraries > phone: 212.854.2714 > fax: 212.854.5167