Print

Print


A couple of comments/clarifications:

For this particular retrospective conversion project, we ARE working with the
piece in hand.  I believe, actually, that the statement you quote below in the
Enhance Outline is intended to caution Enhance libraries agains enhancing records
in cases where they do not own the item AT ALL, especially since it is followed by
a reminder that Enhance transactions appear on archival tapes.

So, in response to Adam's suggestion about just Enhancing the records:  yes, we
are doing so when the situation warrants it, but we would just like to go that
extra mile to make it a pcc record if that is allowed.  In any case, when
something official is decided on this issue, I'd like to see it documented
somewhere - perhaps in the core standards?

Jennifer

Alice F. Permenter wrote:

> You said that you are encountering these records in the course of your
> retrospective conversion.  If you are an OCLC user, you should bear in mind
> the following restriction, taken from the Enhance Training Outline at
> http://www.oclc.org/oclc/cataloging/enhance/outline.htm
>
> "8.  What should not be done with a Regular Enhance authorization.
>               a.Do NOT use Regular Enhance for routine bibliographic file
>                 maintenance. You should not replace records for items you are
>                 not cataloging with piece in hand. (Remember that all replace
>                 transactions appear on your archive tapes). Enhance was
>                 designed to fit into a normal cataloging workflow. There
> are too
>                 many cases of what appear superficially to be "obvious" errors
>                 that turn out not to be errors at all. OCLC is very
> conservative in
>                 what it changes and requires supporting proof from the item
>                 before changing elements of the description."
>
> Or, the following, taken from the Guidelines for National Level Enhance
> Participants at  http://www.oclc.org/oclc/cataloging/enhance/guidelines.htm
>
> "3.  DO NOT
>           . . .
>         d.  DO NOT use National Level Enhance for routine
>                bibliographic file maintenance. It was intended for upgrade
>                work done with the piece in hand.  . . ."
>
> This would appear to address the broader issue of whether you should
> upgrade these records encountered during retro.
>
> Alice F. Permenter
> Head, Cataloging Dept.
> Howard-Tilton Memorial Library
> Tulane University
>
> At 11:41 AM 09/22/1999 -0700, you wrote:
> >My feeling is that in order to call a record a BIBCO record it should be
> >fully AACR2 in addition to having all access points under authority
> >control.  Since you correctly point out that upgrading the headings
> >without upgrading the description would still be doing a service, why not
> >just consider these an ordinary OCLC enhance instead of BIBCO?  You'll get
> >your enhance credit for them but they wouldn't be coded as pcc records.
> >
> >**************************************
> >* Adam L. Schiff                     *
> >* Principal Cataloger                *
> >* University of Washington Libraries *
> >* Box 352900                         *
> >* Seattle, WA 98195-2900             *
> >* (206) 543-8409                     *
> >* (206) 685-8782 fax                 *
> >* [log in to unmask]           *
> >**************************************
> >
> >On Wed, 22 Sep 1999, Jennifer Bowen wrote:
> >
> >> BIBCO colleagues:
> >>
> >> As part of retrospective conversion, we encounter a significant number
> >> of bib. records in OCLC (for sound recordings, at the moment) that could
> >>
> >> potentially be upgraded to BIBCO program records because all of the
> >> access points are covered by authority records.  If we want to do this,
> >> must we upgrade the DESCRIPTION to AACR2 as well as the access points?
> >> Is this issue addressed in any PCC documentation or standard?
> >>
> >> I can tell you that if the answer is: "yes, you need to upgrade the
> >> description", we will just abandon the idea of upgrading the records
> >> altogether.  However, it seems to us that our verifying the access
> >> points and upgrading these to program records, even with leaving the
> >> description "as is", would be a useful service for other libraries.
> >>
> >> Anybody have an answer to this?
> >>
> >> Jennifer
> >>
> >> --
> >> Jennifer Bowen
> >> Head, Technical Services
> >> Sibley Music Library, Eastman School of Music
> >> 27 Gibbs St., Rochester, NY 14604
> >> (716) 274-1370      [log in to unmask]
> >>
> >
> >



--
Jennifer Bowen
Head, Technical Services
Sibley Music Library, Eastman School of Music
27 Gibbs St., Rochester, NY 14604
(716) 274-1370      [log in to unmask]