[DCRM-L] Introduction comments

[Deborah J. Leslie]

Thanks to Jain for the clarification on PCC full. I am on the side of
downplaying the BIBCO aspect, and so would support Manon's idea of
putting this information in a footnote for both full and core. D.

__________________________________________ 
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] On
Behalf Of Manon Theroux
Sent: 21 September 2006 17:30
To: DCRM Revision Group List
Subject: RE: [DCRM-L] Introduction comments

 

It's true that core started out as a PCC endeavor, unlike full, but
since the current reality is that any library can create a core-level
record, just as any library can create a full-level record, I think it
makes sense to account for all 4 variations of these two levels in some
way (full, core, PCC full, PCC core). Especially if it might help to
eliminate confusion about options! If we wanted to downplay the BIBCO
aspect in the Intro sections on core and full, we could put the
sentence(s) about the BIBCO authority record requirements in footnotes.
I think Joe was arguing along these lines at one point, wasn't he?

-Manon


At 03:30 PM 9/21/2006, you 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/20060921/36c255a4/attachment.htm