[DCRM-L] Going from Core-Level to BIBCOStandard Record inDCRM(G)

[Barrett, Marcia]

I asked Becky Culbertson for clarification about how records previously known as core level records are to be defined, now that the BSR has been implemented.   Below is her response as well as an official response from OCLC indicating that core level records can be contributed by any library not contributing records through the PCC.  The wording in Bib Formats will be updated in December to reflect these changes, with core level cataloging defined as "Records that meet at least the requirements of first-level description (AACR2, rule 1.0D1) and meet some requirements of second-level description (AACR2, rule 1.0D2).  The core standard is a less-than-full standard, but is more inclusive than Minimal-level."



Marcia Barrett

Special Collections Cataloger

University Libraries

The University of Alabama

Box 870266

Tuscaloosa AL  35487-0266

205-348-6390




From: Culbertson, Rebecca [mailto:rculbertson at ucsd.edu]
Sent: Tuesday, November 30, 2010 6:17 PM
To: Barrett, Marcia
Cc: Culbertson, Rebecca; Sotelo, Aislinn
Subject: FW: Encoding level 4

Dear Marcia,

Just to get everyone thinking on the same page, I sent an email below to OCLC's QC section.  (This section consists of Glenn Patton, Cynthia Whitacre, Jay Weitz, Brenda Block, and Robert Bremer).  They take one day a week to promptly answer questions that come in to AskQC from their constituents.

Their response (already!) was:  "Bottom line, the answer is yes, core level can still be used by any library who is not contributing records with 042 of pcc.  You are quite correct that we need to revise wording in BFAS.  Thank you for identifying places where wording changes are needed.  That has certainly made our job easier.  We'll work on revisions and get them in the works and hopefully have this completed sometime in December.  I'll be sure to let you know when we've gotten changes made in BFAS."

Marcia,  The word "core" (and believe me, no one liked the word, because it has had so many different meanings in the past!)  has essentially been replaced by the concept of "floor" that appears in the current crop of BSRs.  I hadn't thought about it before, but in a way the phrase "core record standards for completeness" that you see in the MARC definition of Encoding Level 4 used in the past by libraries contributing PCC records, has been supplanted for libraries using an 042 of "pcc" by ONE Encoding Level of "blank".  Non-BIBCO libraries can still use ELvl 4 if they want--and if they did, the "floor" concept would apply.  If libraries were cataloging in OCLC however, they would be more apt to use K-again using the "floor" concept, as I and K are OCLC constructs.  Outside of OCLC they actually would have to use "4" if it fit.

I was just looking at the OCLC comparison of cataloging level guidelines with Aislinn Sotelo
http://www.oclc.org/us/en/bibformats/en/onlinecataloging/default.shtm#BCGGBAFC
and we realized that if a non-PCC library cataloged a resource as Elvl "I" or "K" and an 040 with DCRMB that the choice of encoding level would depend on the "fullness" with which you supplied the various elements.  PCC libraries don't have this differentiation.  Records with an 042 of "pcc" and an Elvl of "blank" and an 040 with DCRMB may, in a sense, end up with major differences in terms of levels.   This actually doesn't bother me because I think of bib records as going through an iterative process of incubation-they will improve over time.  That "floor" concept again! You can build in improvement.  This is in contrast to the records that in the past were only issued when they were "perfect"

Becky


From: Culbertson, Rebecca
Sent: Tuesday, November 30, 2010 11:09 AM
To: askqc
Cc: Culbertson, Rebecca
Subject: Encoding level 4

Dear QCrs,

Below are OCLC documentation questions, not necessarily nudges.  This is what it says in the OCLC ELvl input standards.

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.

Does this section need to be rewritten to remove the last sentence? (or possibly rephrasing it to read):  "Libraries participating in PCC through BIBCO or CONSER and contributing records with an authentication code in field 042 should only use Encoding level of blank."  Or some such wording

Also, I went to the definition of "Full, Core, Minimal and Abbreviated-Level Cataloging and found this:

"In addition, OCLC adopted the core-level standard that was defined in 1994 by the Cooperative Cataloging Council (now known as the Program for Cooperative Cataloging (PCC)). For more information on approved Core-level standards, see the Monographic Bibliographic Record Program of the PCC ( http://www.loc.gov/catdir/pcc/bibco/bibco.html)."

Should the above paragraph be revised (or deleted) since it isn't really applicable for PCC members anymore?

Core-level cataloging

Records that meet at least the requirements of first-level description (AACR2, rule 1.0D1) and meet some requirements of second-level description (AACR2, rule 1.0D2). The core standard is a less-than-full standard, but is more inclusive than Minimal-level. The standard is optional. Use it as appropriate

Bottom line-can the Core-level cataloging standard-still be defined as above?  Can it still be used by any library who is not contributing records with an 042 of PCC?

Becky

Rebecca Culbertson
Shared Cataloging Program
California Digital Library
Metadata Services Department
University of California, San Diego
La Jolla, California 92093-0175
(858) 822-6415 (Phone)
(858) 822-0349 (Fax)
"The cognitive load of a cataloger
equals that of an air traffic controller"--Holly M.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/attachments/20101201/3d47abd6/attachment.htm 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 1089 bytes
Desc: image001.gif
Url : http://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/attachments/20101201/3d47abd6/attachment.gif