Dear PCC participants,
Catalogers at BIBCO institutions are not required by the PCC to authenticate every bibliographic record they create/update. If a cataloger decides not to authenticate a particular bibliographic record (i.e., the record is not being coded 042 pcc), there is no requirement that the AAPs on that record be supported by name authority records.
In the BIBCO Standard Record (BSR) RDA Metadata Application Profile, the phrase “if authenticating” was added to the rows for the 042 field for two reasons. First, to remind BIBCO catalogers not to add 042 pcc to a record if they are not authenticating it. Second, to let catalogers at non-PCC libraries (who might consult the BSR for guidance) know they should not be adding 042 pcc to their records. If anyone finds the BSR language unclear, please feel free to suggest a revision.
Finally, to get back to the original question: NACO libraries should definitely not be creating new authority records with AAPs in the following AACR2-style forms:
[Title]. $l [Language 1] & [Language 2]
[Name]. $t [Title]. $l [Language 1] & [Language 2]
[Title]. $l Polyglot
[Name]. $t [Title]. $l Polyglot
Existing AACR2 NACO records with such forms should be reported for deletion to [log in to unmask] once the cataloger has created/identified the necessary RDA replacement records.
See the following for more information:
Please let me know if you have any additional questions.
Cooperative Cataloging Program Specialist
Acting BIBCO Coordinator
Library of Congress
I’m with Kevin on this. If it is not coded as 042 pcc, it is not an official BIBCO record. Doesn’t mean it isn’t a good record and it doesn’t mean that all non-pcc records are bad records. I _do_ evaluate the quality of a record by its 042 code and will instruct any paraprofessional working for me to do the same.
Stephen T. Early
Center for Research Libraries
6050 S. Kenwood
Chicago, IL 60637
CRL website: www.crl.edu
I would argue, a BIBCO record is a record contributed by a BIBCO participant (including LC) to the international database, the description of which is done fully according to the BRS rules. Whether it is authenticated or not is an entirely different matter. Most BIBCO catalogers can tell often right away whether a bib record is up to the current BRS rules or not. There’s no need to look at 042. In the real world of cataloging, we are not evaluating the quality of a record by looking at its “code,” but by the current RDA/LC/PCC standard according to which a resource is analyzed and cataloged.
If, as you pointed out, “a BIBCO record, is by definition, a PCC record,” then, would not “a PCC-BIBCO record” (as in “"Yes. For all records they contribute as PCC BIBCO records …”) sound redundant to you? Would not “if authenticating” appear entirely unnecessary in a document that spells out what a BIBCO record is? And again, there’s the phrase “non-BIBCO records” cataloged according to “other rules” (mentioned earlier in the thread, as part of the BIBCO FAQs). Do you take it to mean simply “non-PCC records”?
A BIBCO record is, by definition, a PCC record. A BIBCO record is a record that has been authenticated by a participating BIBCO institution and contains an authentication code in field 042.
Records that follow the BIBCO guidelines but are not authenticated, are not BIBCO records. Since there is no way to tell whether a non-authenticated record has been described following the BIBCO guidelines, wihout evaluating every element in it, I can't think of any utility for the concept of a "non-PCC BIBCO record".
Kevin M. Randall
Principal Serials Cataloger
Northwestern University Libraries
Proudly wearing the sensible shoes since 1978!