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!