Print

Print


Jennifer et al:
        You have raised an important question, one which surely will arise
again, and I have asked Ruta Penkiunas to consult with the Coop team and
provide the LC view on the issue.  I think that Joan Schuitema should
also speak to the question on behalf of the Standards Committee.
Finally, once we have an answer articulated upon which there is general
agreement, I recommend that the question/answer join the others already
posted to BIBCO Introduction to Core Record document (under the PCC
home-page).
                                        Thanks again,
                                            John

Jennifer Bowen wrote:
>
> 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]

--
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^^  John D. Byrum, Jr.                                    ^^
^^  Chief, Regional & Cooperative Cataloging Division     ^^
^^  Library of Congress LM-535                            ^^
^^  Washington, D.C.  20540-4380        LL                ^^
^^                                      LL    CCC         ^^
^^  (202) 707-6511                      LL  CC   CC       ^^
^^  FAX (202) 707-2824                  LLLLLLLL          ^^
^^                                          CC   CC       ^^
^^  [log in to unmask]                              CCC         ^^
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^