Print

Print


That is so true Kevin!

Thank you for saying so



On Thu, Apr 11, 2019 at 10:47 AM Kevin M Randall <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:

> One should also keep in mind that just because an institution is a member
> of PCC, that does not mean every single contribution to OCLC (new record,
> or modification of existing record) is something being done *as part of*
> the PCC program. Libraries can have many different workflows for different
> cataloging situations.
>
> Kevin M. Randall
> Principal Serials Cataloger
> Northwestern University Libraries
> Northwestern University
> www.library.northwestern.edu
> [log in to unmask]
> 847.491.2939
>
> Proudly wearing the sensible shoes since 1978!
>
>
>
> *From:* Program for Cooperative Cataloging <[log in to unmask]> *On
> Behalf Of *Salisbury, Preston
> *Sent:* Thursday, April 11, 2019 8:35 AM
> *To:* [log in to unmask]
> *Subject:* Re: [PCCLIST] Modified vendor records
>
>
>
> I’m somewhat more concerned that one of those records is $b eng despite
> looking for all the world like a German record. #1056989349 is coded as
> English but the only fields that appear to be English are the 336 and 338
> fields, which are in turn missing $a. 300, 500, and all subject headings
> are in German (this, despite the majority of the subject headings being 650
> _0.)
>
> I suspect this is the result of an automated process that might need some
> refining. Since these are both coded level M, that further indicates this
> as the result of problematic automation. Perhaps we should preserve these
> records as they are as an example of why we actually need human catalogers!
>
> Regarding the $e rda part of the message, it is my understanding that PCC
> does not require members to upgrade every record touched to full RDA.
> Additionally, I’m quite certain the policy governing this states that
> unless a record is fully converted to RDA, one is not to insert the
> subfield $e rda. The policy notes that there will be a number of “hybrid”
> records that will not be coded as RDA but will appear as RDA. I’ve seen a
> number of these in my cataloging, as I’m sure we all have. That’s not a
> problem in my book (if we see that a record is fully RDA, we can certainly
> add the field) but I would say that getting the language of cataloging
> right is certainly important.
>
> Preston Salisbury
>
> Assistant Professor and Monographic Cataloger
>
> Mississippi State University
>
> (662) 325-4618
>
> [log in to unmask]
>
>
>
> *From:* Program for Cooperative Cataloging [
> mailto:[log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>] *On Behalf Of
> *Yang Wang
> *Sent:* Thursday, April 11, 2019 8:24 AM
> *To:* [log in to unmask]
> *Subject:* [PCCLIST] Modified vendor records
>
>
>
> When a vendor record is touched (read: edited) and submitted to OCLC by a
> PCC member institution, one would expect to see a decent description of the
> resource. One would expect, at least, the record to have $b eng and $e rda,
> even at the minimal or less-than-full level. Is it a fair and reasonable
> expectation?
>
> Here are two examples I encountered earlier today in OCLC:
> (OCoLC)on1056989349 and (OCoLC)on1082199020.
>
> In the online catalogs of the two holding libraries that touched the
> records last, records have been improved to some degree. But why are
> changes not reflected in OCLC? The LC call numbers are still very broad,
> however, vendor-assigned by any chance? What is happening to cooperative
> cataloging?
>
> Yang
>


-- 
Jesse A Lambertson
Head of Cataloging & Metadata
*Georgetown University Law Library*
[log in to unmask]
Ph: *202-662-9167*