I believe that there’s a difference between “authenticating a BIBCO record” and “describing a resource according to the BIBCO standard.” Using “BSR for guidance” is exactly what I meant, namely, taking into account of core elements of RDA and LC/PCC instructions, even if one does not authenticate the bib itself, for one reason or another.




From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Robert J. Rendall
Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2018 10:57 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] Updating UT/expression language authorities


I believe the parenthesis (if authenticating) refers to the situation described in this paragraph on page 3 of the same document:

"Catalogers not authenticating their records for BIBCO may use the BSR for guidance but should also ensure that their records comply with any additional standards relevant to their particular situation where these vary from PCC requirements. In these records, some data required in BIBCO records will not be appropriate and should not be included (e.g., 008/39=“c” and 042=“pcc”)."

I wouldn't read anything else into it.


Robert Rendall

Principal Serials Cataloger

Original and Special Materials Cataloging, Columbia University Libraries

102 Butler Library, 535 West 114th Street, New York, NY 10027

tel.: 212 851 2449  fax: 212 854 5167


On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 9:22 AM, Yang Wang <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

Gene wrote: “No need to do authority work. Is there?”


A caustic rhetorical question! At some point, BIBCO must re-emphasize the importance of quality control and uphold the standard that it sets out for us to follow.    


Here’s the BIBCO’s mission statement: “BIBCO participants contribute bibliographical records to international databases, meeting or exceeding the elements of the BIBCO Standard Record. BIBCO records include headings backed by complete [italics are mine] authority work, both descriptive and subject.”


It is good to see its iteration more recently in the NACO training courses (Slide 8, NACO Training Module 6, “Describing works and expressions”): “BIBCO requires all access points in a BSR (BIBCO Standard Record) to be supported by authority records.”


One would think that when BIBCO participating institutions create a new bibliographic record or update an existing one, they are expected to follow the BIBCO standard, whether they want to authenticate it or not (by coding it pcc in 042). 


At least this is how I understand it, as indicated in the “BIBCO Standard Record (BSR) RDA Metadata Application Profile (September 6, 2017 revision)”: “Use ‘c’ or ‘blank’ (if authenticating)” in 008/39 for cataloging source and “Use pcc (if authenticating)” in 042 for authentication code.


My point is: even if a cataloger does not (want to) authenticate a BSR, he or she is still expected to do full authority work on all AAPs as required by BIBCO.


Otherwise, what else would “if authenticating” mean?





From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Gene Fieg
Sent: Friday, July 13, 2018 4:57 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] Updating UT/expression language authorities


No longer a cataloger.  But even before RDA, we saw a lot of this.  What is happening is this (go back to that meeting several years ago about bibliographical control sponsored by LC and it technical service division, about everybody, including vendors being contributors).  Note that we have two vendor submissions, Baker and Taylor and Yankee.  This not a DLC/DLC record at all; DLC simply rubber stamped it.  And I would submit that this will continue at a faster pace as more and more people adopt WMS; you can order through WMS and when the books are sent, the library's ownership symbol is added to the holdings list.  WMS is extremely tempting to library directors who see their job as keeping costs down (don't want to do that expensive cataloging thing).  And so now records created by vendors and rubber stamped by DLC are the norm.  No need to do authority work.  Is there?


Gene Fieg


On Fri, Jul 13, 2018 at 7:29 AM, Yang Wang <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

I was just curious and did a quick search (by combining “& [name of a language]” in uniform title with “rda” as a keyword) in our local database. I found quite a few such headings indeed. Apparently it’s not just that some catalogers are re-using old headings, but that they continue creating new ones.


Here’s an example: (OCoLC)890792787. It has been updated several times since 2014. There are 100 holding institutions in GLIMIR cluster. The authorized access point itself is not established, clearly, but the fact that the mistake is there, having escaped the notice of so many pairs of eyes, is little short of embarrassing.




From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Robert M. TALBOTT
Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2018 7:14 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: [PCCLIST] Updating UT/expression language authorities


Hello folks:


I've been seeing a lot of RDA records with 130 [title].$l [language 1] & [language 2] authorities attached of late.  I can't tell you how sad this makes me.


My sense of the matter of updating these records is to create a new authority for each language if it doesn't yet exist in the AF, and request cancellation of original.  Is this correct?


I looked high and low for official documentation, and the closest I came was a PCC list thread from 2013, which confirmed my assumption, but the smart money says, "Ask first, then do the work."






Bob Talbott

Principal cataloger/Hebraica cataloger

UC Berkeley

250 Moffitt

Berkeley, CA 94720

If they're too small for court, they're probably shorts.

If they're long and advanced, you're looking at pants