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

[Sotelo, Aislinn]

Yes, I was about to chime in about including Becky Culbertson in on the conversation as well. And for what it's worth, though we're not a BIBCO library, we are adopting the BSRs as our core records, for all material types, just not coding the 042. We are using it as a floor though in a lot of cases and still following our local editing procedures.

Aislinn Sotelo

Special Collections Cataloger, UC San Diego Libraries | * 858-534-6766 | * asotelo at ucsd.edu<mailto:asotelo at ucsd.edu>

From: dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu [mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu] On Behalf Of Fletcher, Jain
Sent: Tuesday, November 30, 2010 12:20 PM
To: DCRM Revision Group List
Subject: Re: [DCRM-L] Going from Core-Level to BIBCO Standard Record inDCRM(G)

Hi, everyone,
   I received a message from Glenn Patton today, who wanted to make certain that I got the message from a reliable and knowledgable source that my "scuttlebutt" about OCLC driving the BSR was incorrect. He said OCLC was definitely at the table for discussions about it, but impetus for the change came entirely from PCC.  He also let me know that Encoding Level 4 was a legal MARC value. This should mean that we can take any concerns that it is going away out of consideration.
   Finally, he let me know how the BSRs can/should work; here's what he said:
"One comment about who can create BSRs:  from an OCLC system perspective, one needs a OCLC National Enhance authorization to add the 042 field with 'pcc' that marks the record as a BIBCO record.  But, anyone could choose to adopt the BIBCO (or CONSER) standard record guidelines for some or all of their cataloging (just as many institutions have adopted the PCC full and core record standards in the past)."
   So, this should give us some good direction about use of the BSR.  At the same time, he also reminded me that Becky Culbertson of UCSD (<Becky at library.ucsd.edu>) is the current chair of the PCC Standing Committee on Standards and that she would be a good source to ask about any remaining questions we may have.  (I was actually going to mention her name yesterday-which would have been one of the few correct statements I made!!)
                                                                                                                                --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 Erin Blake
Sent: Tuesday, November 30, 2010 12:03 PM
To: DCRM Revision Group List
Subject: Re: [DCRM-L] Going from Core-Level to BIBCO Standard Record inDCRM(G)

Well, it looks like this isn't going to be resolved before the current draft of DCRM(G) gets made available in advance of the January 8 public hearing, at any rate (which should be in the next day or so). Is it something that should go on the BSC meeting agenda, especially if someone who isn't me can get an answer to Jain and Manon's questions about the future of LDR/17=4.

>From what I can tell, the DCRM intention is that guidance come in three sizes: extra-small (i.e., minimal-level, using Appendix D as the floor), small (i.e., more than minimal but less than full, using Appendix C as the floor), and regular (full level, using the whole manual and its requirements as the floor).

Annie, are you saying that Appendix C should be the "DCRM Core" as it were, and not make reference to the BSR except to direct PCC participants to consult that standard on their own? In theory, it wouldn't matter whether encoding level 4 goes away, since DCRM is theoretically MARC-independent.
   EB.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/attachments/20101130/be55f3cc/attachment.htm