Print

Print


Thank you Caroline and Shana for the clarification!

 

Best,

Louise

 

From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Saccucci, Caroline
Sent: Monday, February 01, 2016 7:20 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [BIBCO] ECIP Cataloging Partnership/NACO Announcement

 

Hi Louise,

 

Shana is correct.  This is something we really looked into before making this change, and we received confirmation from OCLC that this was indeed the case.

 

Thanks

Caroline

 

Caroline Saccucci

Dewey Section Head and Program Manager

Acting CIP Program Manager

U.S. Program, Law & Literature Division

Acquisitions & Bibliographic Access Directorate

Library of Congress

(202) 707-3317

[log in to unmask]

http://www.loc.gov/aba/dewey/

http://www.loc.gov/publish/cip/

 

From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Shana McDanold
Sent: Monday, February 01, 2016 9:38 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [BIBCO] ECIP Cataloging Partnership/NACO Announcement

 

Louise,

 

My understanding is that in order to change it from an ELvl 8 to an ELvl [blank] you MUST have a BIBCO authorization.

 

Thus, once something is coded blank, it would have been upgraded to full BSR by a BIBCO library and thus will comply.

 

It's similar to the ISSN records for serials, they are coded as being CONSER although they are the equivalent of the "in publication" book records.

 

Best,

Shana


*****

Library-logo-ES.png

Shana L. McDanold
ALA ALCTS Cataloging and Metadata Management Section (CaMMS) Vice-Chair
Unit Head, Metadata Services
202-687-3356
[log in to unmask]

 

 

On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 6:46 PM, Ratliff, Louise <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

Hello all,

 

So my question is, what will be the standard of cataloging for ECIP records, given this change in the pool of contributors?

 

If they will eventually be encoded as level "blank" and will contain an 042 field with "pcc," by definition that means they conform to the BSR standard.  What if they do not?  Having authorized access points that are in authority files is only part of the BSR standard.

 

I suggest that if these records do not comply with BSR, they should NOT be coded as such.

 

Best,

Louise Ratliff

Social Sciences & Map Catalog Libarian

BIBCO and NACO contributor

UCLA

 

 

 


From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging <[log in to unmask]> on behalf of Prager, George <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Friday, January 29, 2016 12:31 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [BIBCO] ECIP Cataloging Partnership/NACO Announcement

 

Jessalyn and Karl,

Thanks so much for your response. I can see that the requirements for what constitutes a national level record haven’t changed. And also that expanding the pool of libraries participating in it is a good idea.

 

Respectfully, I do think that allowing non-BIBCO libraries to contribute national level monographic records for the ECIP Program does raise some important philosophical issues, which may merit further discussion. Would the OpCo meeting in May be an appropriate venue?

  

1.       a. Creating national level monographic  records in the ECIP Program will not require BIBCO membership; NACO membership will suffice.

b. Creating national level monographic records outside of the ECIP Program WILL still require BIBCO membership; NACO membership will not suffice.

 

I see this as a disconnect. I’d like to see the same membership requirements for all monographic national level cataloging—require BIBCO membership for both ECIP and non-ECIP national level monographic record creation, or don’t require it.  

 

2.       What exactly does it mean to be a BIBCO member, if membership is required only to contribute a certain subset of monographic national level records (those that are not ECIP)?

 

George

 

 

From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Zoom, Jessalyn
Sent: Friday, January 29, 2016 1:00 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: [BIBCO] FW: ECIP Cataloging Partnership/NACO Announcement

 

Forwarding the message below on behalf of Karl Debus-Lopez.  Apology for duplications.   – Jessalyn Zoom  

 

From: Debus-Lopez, Karl
Sent: Friday, January 29, 2016 12:37 PM
To: Zoom, Jessalyn; 'Program for Cooperative Cataloging'
Cc: '[log in to unmask]'
Subject: RE: ECIP Cataloging Partnership/NACO Announcement

 

Dear Jessalyn,

 

Thank you for this response to George.  I believe you have answered his questions extremely well.   From my perspective, opening up the ECIP Cataloging Partnership Program to NACO members is a win/win that does not negatively impact the BIBCO program and allows NACO participants the ability to participate in ECIP work.  By participating in the ECIP Cataloging Partnership Program, the NACO members will see the most recent research in areas of interest to their institutions.  In some cases, they can partner with their institutional presses by cataloging their forthcoming titles.  ECIPs have also proven to be an excellent source of subject proposals. 

 

Best,

Karl

 

From: Zoom, Jessalyn
Sent: Friday, January 29, 2016 12:08 PM
To: 'Program for Cooperative Cataloging'
Cc: '[log in to unmask]'; Debus-Lopez, Karl
Subject: FW: ECIP Cataloging Partnership/NACO Announcement

 

Hi George,

 

Thank you for sending these questions.  Sorry that you weren’t able to post your questions directly.  I’m forwarding them to the list as requested and have also attached my individual response to you below and hope it helps.  Note that my response does not represent the official opinion of the Library.

 

BIBCO Standard Records (BSR, aka national level bibliographic records) are created and contributed from two streams, one from catalog records of published materials, the other from pre-publication records or ECIP records.  BIBCO ECIP records have always been considered as BIBCO records and include the “pcc” in field 042.  They lack extent, dimensions, and other data required in BSR records and use Prepublication encoding level “8” until the CIP verification process upgrade them to encoding level “blank.”  However, these ECIP records are backed by authorized access points in both names and subjects.  ECIP Partners send their ECIP records via the ECIP program software, and the Library of Congress distributes the completed records to participating utilities.  The Library’s ILS performs automated validation check on names and subject headings when records are completed and distributed to the utilities.    

 

So as you see the requirements for creating and coding ECIP records as “pcc” records will not change once the invitation opens to qualified NACO members.  Access points in ECIP records will continue to be supported by authority records established through the NACO program and SACO proposal submitting procedure. 

 

There are over 60 members in the BIBCO program, and 29 of them are participating ECIP partners currently.  While the change will not affect current BIBCO members in their contribution to the program, it will provide an important venue to help expand the ECIP Cataloging Partnership Program.  Karl can explain it better.  I’ll just speak of my observation working in one of the cataloging sections at the Library.  The Library receives high volumes of ECIP receipts from publishers.  It is important that the new titles are cataloged timely so researchers and users can access them.  Expanding the ECIP program to qualified NACO libraries is a way to go and will benefit the users we serve.   

 

Thank you.

Jessalyn

 

 

From: Prager, George [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Thursday, January 28, 2016 3:46 PM
To: Zoom, Jessalyn
Subject: FW: ECIP Cataloging Partnership/NACO Announcement

 

Hi Jessalyn.

I had some questions on the announcing change. Could you please forward this to the BIBCO list? Also, could you please have my email address corrected to: [log in to unmask]   (My attempt to send it to the list was rejected because my email address had changed).

 

Thanks,

George

 

Rejected posting below:

I  have some questions regarding this policy change:

 

1.       I think that the requirements for creating or certifying records as national level bibliographic records should be the same, regardless of whether they are produced via the ECIP program or otherwise (presently through BIBCO for non ECIP titles).  Unless of course if there is a sound theoretical reason for doing otherwise.

2.       In the context of the above policy change, what then is the meaning of being a member of the BIBCO Program?  

 

Thanks for any clarification on these issues.

 

George

 

 

 

George Prager

Head of Cataloging

New York University Law School Library

212-998-6340

 

 

 

From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Zoom, Jessalyn
Sent: Thursday, January 28, 2016 2:44 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: [PCCLIST] ECIP Cataloging Partnership/NACO Announcement

 

PCC colleagues, the announcement below is being sent to multiple listserv lists.  Please excuse for duplications.  Thank you.  – Jessalyn Zoom

 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

ECIP Cataloging Partnership Program Expands Membership Requirement to include NACO Member Institutions

 

The Cataloging-in-Publication (CIP) Program is changing one of the key requirements for joining its Electronic Cataloging in Publication Cataloging Partnership Program. Previously, cataloging institutions interested in becoming cataloging partners with the CIP Program were required to be members of BIBCO. The CIP Program is proud to announce that NACO member institutions qualify for joining the Partnership Program effective February 1, 2016. This will greatly increase the number of potential partner libraries and institutions available while still preserving the highest cataloging standards which the Library of Congress, the CIP Program, and the Program for Cooperative Cataloging (PCC) are dedicated to producing.

 

The CIP Program is able to achieve this balance between expanding the potential membership base of the PCC program while still maintaining cataloging standards for several reasons. BIBCO and NACO institutions are both members of PCC. Name access points are among the most important elements in a bibliographic record and those libraries likely to be targeted as potential partners by the CIP Program will have a high likelihood of quality cataloging. OCLC has also changed its policy to reflect this expertise; authorizing NACO users to update master records as members of a group of “expert users”. All partner-created records, whether done by a BIBCO or NACO institution, will be completed by the Library of Congress and have the “pcc” code present in the 042 MARC field. While completing these partner-records, LC staff will also perform an automated validation on all name and subject headings in the bibliographic record through the Library’s ILS system. Additionally, CIP Program Specialists will review all of the initial records created by a new partner library, adding another layer of quality control.

 

The CIP Program is excited to begin this new era of greater cooperation in cataloging, forging relationships with new partner institutions and strengthening the rapport with our existing partners. If you have any additional questions about the change or are interested in becoming a cataloging partner with the CIP Program, please feel free to contact the Acting CIP Program Manager, Caroline Saccucci, at [log in to unmask].

 

Karl E. Debus-López

Chief, U.S. Programs, Law, and Literature Division

Acquisitions and Bibliographic Access Directorate

The Library of Congress

101 Independence Ave. S.E., LM-501

Washington, D.C. 20540-4280