On Tue, 8 Jun 2010, Lasater, Mary Charles wrote: > On the more general question of the size of the pool of PCC records, are > others discouraged from making PCC records because present OCLC policy > locks them from upgrades by non-PCC libraries (although LC records CAN > be upgraded?). By "upgrade" do you actually mean "given 'enhanced' content?" This is the problem with using formal terms in informal contexts. I suppose, however, that changing a PCC record to an RDA record (in that eventuality) could be considered an "upgrade" for which we should be compensated by OCLC accordingly. I am not [yet] discouraged from making PCC records because I have been conditioned to think that they are of greater value to the cataloging community (e.g., verifying that all authority work has been done) than non-PCC records. Thinking that, however, also requires I accept the concept that OCLC "master" records were originally intended to facilitate cataloging, not local materials discovery. Changing that paradigm changes the entire question. As for the multiple problems others have identified with the WorldCat Local concept, there could be 2 separate OCLC databases, one containing basic generalized "master" records for catalogers' use, and one containing those records with localized information coded as for display only in relation to specific local subscribers. Either could also incorporate information (fields) in various languages or about various formats on the same record but only displaying to libraries selecting particular languages or formats for display (so no need for multiple records for the same title). Cheers! jgm John G. Marr Cataloger CDS, UL Univ. of New Mexico Albuquerque, NM 87131 [log in to unmask] [log in to unmask] **There are only 2 kinds of thinking: "out of the box" and "outside the box." Opinions belong exclusively to the individuals expressing them, but sharing is permitted.