[DCRM-L] Introduction comments

[Fletcher, Jain]

Hi, Jane,

   My guess is that you hadn't seen my response to this issue yet, where
I reminded people that "core" can indeed be entered by non-PCC
libraries.  But your comment gave me pause and I decided to check the
guidance in OCLC's Bibliographic Formats and Standards for entering a
"4" ("core") in the FF Encoding level byte. Here it is:

            "Core-level. A record that is less-than-full, but
greater-than-minimal-level cataloging and that meets core record
standards for completeness. Any OCLC participant may enter a Core-level
record as long as Core-level input standards are followed. A Core-level
record that is entered by a library participating in PCC through BIBCO
or CONSER will contain an authentication code in field 042."

 

BTW, following "core-level input standards" here means ensuring that it
meets those standards for completeness NOT that they follow the PCC
requirement for authorized headings.  Another way of putting this is
that it is the "pcc" in the 042 that is the guarantee that access points
are authorized, and not the Encoding Level.code relating to its
completeness.

 
--Jain

Jain Fletcher
Principal Cataloger & Head, Technical Services Division 
Department of Special Collections 
Young Research Library - UCLA Box 951575
Los Angeles, CA 90095-1575

v: (310) 794-4096
f: (310) 206-1864
e: jfletchr at library.ucla.edu <mailto:jfletchr at library.ucla.edu>   

________________________________

From: dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu [mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu] On
Behalf Of Jane Gillis
Sent: Thursday, September 21, 2006 1:11 PM
To: DCRM Revision Group List; DCRM Revision Group List
Subject: RE: [DCRM-L] Introduction comments

 

I think that separating out pcc, whether core or full, from just full,
might be useful.  Pcc records require that all access points be
authorized; full, non-pcc, records do not.  Core records do require that
all access points be authorized, because core is only pcc.  

Jane

At 03:30 PM 9/21/2006 Thursday-0400, Deborah J. Leslie wrote:




Possibly because the definition of core-level cataloging is a BIBCO
endeavor, is it not, whereas full-level cataloging did not originate
with PCC. Therefore, mention of BIBCO requirements make sense in the
section on core, but not necessarily in the section on full. 

__________________________________________

Deborah J. Leslie, M.A., M.L.S.

Chair, RBMS Bibliographic Standards Committee

http://www.folger.edu/bsc/index.html

Head of Cataloging, Folger Shakespeare Library

201 East Capitol St., S.E., Washington, D.C. 20003

djleslie at folger.edu || 202.675-0369 || http://www.folger.edu   

-----Original Message-----

From: dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu [ mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu
<mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu> ] On Behalf Of Manon Theroux

Sent: 21 September 2006 15:26

To: DCRM Revision Group List

Subject: RE: [DCRM-L] Introduction comments

You're right, Nina, at least for PCC full-level 

records. The BIBCO Manual seems pretty clear 

about it. I'm so glad you spoke up.

So, in the full-level section of the Intro, we need to strike:

"The name headings need not be established using 

authority records, although full authority work 

will generally result in greater consistency of headings and improved
access."

And I suggest we include the following somewhere in that paragraph:

"If an institution is a BIBCO participant, 

contributing full-level records as part of the 

Program for Cooperative Cataloging (PCC), all 

headings must be established in the LC/NACO and LC/SACO Authority
Files."

to parallel the text in the core-level section.

Now I wonder what led me/us to think the way we 

did. This text has been in the Pre-Cataloging 

Decisions section for a long time!

-Manon



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/attachments/20060921/280507fe/attachment.htm