 |
 |
Let me second Kate's question or perhaps enter it as a plea. The PCC SACO Task Force report in 2003 had asked for an OCLC-based submission process for subjects. We were very enthused about it and hoped it would happen soon. Even though the LC review and editorial control required for LC subjects may never permit them to be finalized as quickly as names and series, making provisional subject proposals available in the OCLC subjects file once they are submitted might help a lot. Locally I ask my catalogers to wait for LC approval of the subjects we submit and then enter them in the records. This has the disadvantage of not including them on the OCLC records during the interim, but avoids the problem Adam reported. Besides, sometimes my cross-references turn out to be headings, etc. :) Happy Holidays to All, Jimmie Jimmie Lundgren Science & Social Science Cataloging Unit Head Cataloging & Metadata Dept. Smathers Library PO Box 117004 University of Florida Gainesville, FL 32611-7007 352-273-2725 352-392-7365 (fax) [log in to unmask] -----Original Message----- From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Kate Harcourt Sent: Monday, December 22, 2008 9:47 AM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] Reminder: check LC Authorities for proposed subjects 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