It is certainly true that not everything should be to PCC standard. I do not do all of my cataloging to that standard. I would highly doubt that any institution does. Sometimes, there is simply not enough information available to do it.

But to argue that is to miss the point. The point was that, in the words of the original e-mail, “even at the minimal or less-than-full level” there were substantial problems with those records. I do not think that anyone expected that every single record we touch or contribute needs to be full cataloging. But I should certainly hope that we will at least code things properly for language of cataloging and use the correct indicators in our fields.

Let’s not get sidetracked chasing this rabbit. The initial point was that there were some very problematic records which had at some point been edited by PCC institutions (granted, these records would be a problem whoever edited them.) I suspect the wrong language code might be the result of OCLC adding all the language codes to records, as they have done recently. I do not know how they decided to assign those codes in 040 $b, but I suspect that was the genesis of that problem.

All cataloging, at whatever level, should conform to some basic standards. On that point we should all agree.

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]] On Behalf Of Young,William C
Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2019 11:28 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] Modified vendor records

 

Aye, and it really is not even appropriate for PCC institutions to do all their cataloging at PCC standard.

Personally, I consider anything related to Florida, tropical agriculture, The Caribbean and a few other areas to be our “specialty”, so those things become automatic PCCs.  But am I going to catalog Italian VHS tapes to PCC standard?  NO WAY!  That is what K level is for.

 

Hank

 

William C. (Hank) Young

CONSER Coordinator

George A. Smathers Libraries

University of Florida

 

From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging <[log in to unmask]> On Behalf Of Kevin M Randall
Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2019 11:53 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] Modified vendor records

 

I think the problem is that we need more catalogers, period. There is simply too much work to be done, and it is not realistic to expect every PCC member institution to perform *all* of their cataloging at full level PCC standards. If that were a requirement, I think we'd see PCC membership drop precipitously.

Kevin

 

From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging <[log in to unmask]> On Behalf Of Yang Wang
Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2019 10:39 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] Modified vendor records

 

Double-standard much, or, multiple standards? A pcc member institution creates/contributes overwhelming amount of minimal/less-than-full, non-RDA bib records?

As Preston rightly points out: “…we actually need human catalogers!” We need subject specialists too.

Yang

From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Kevin M Randall
Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2019 10:47 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] Modified vendor records

 

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]] 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