LC Serial Copy Cataloging

To: Technical Services Staff (YULCAT List)
From: Joan Swanekamp
Date: (11/18/04 creation date/ 04/05/2006 10:40 AM revision date)


Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2004 17:17:47 -0500
To: yulcat-l@lists.yale.edu
From: Joan Swanekamp <joan.swanekamp@yale.edu>
Subject: Fwd: lccopycat
Cc: Marcia Romanansky <marcia.romanansky@yale.edu>

Dear cataloging colleagues,

You will begin seeing LC copy cataloging for serials with an 042 lccopycat.  These records are acceptable for serials copy cataloging and follow the guidelines outlined in the following message from LC.  Do let me know if you have any questions about this new LC practice.

Joan

<QUOTE FOLLOWING:>

Date:         Thu, 18 Nov 2004 08:46:44 -0500
Reply-To: CONSER Cataloging Discussion List <CONSRLST@loc.gov>
Sender: CONSER Cataloging Discussion List <CONSRLST@loc.gov>
From: Maureen O Landry <mlan@loc.gov>
Subject: lccopycat
Comments: To: consrlst@sun8.loc.gov
To: CONSRLST@sun8.LOC.GOV

I have seen the messages some of you posted to CONSERlst in October
regarding LC's decision to begin using "lccopycat" on certain
categories of serial records.   I was blissfully unaware of the
"flap" our announcement caused since I was off at the Outer
Banks!

First I want to say I do appreciate your concern for the records in the
CONSER database and the effect LC's changes may cause in your internal
workflows.  I also want to thank you for the questions you raised which
in turn caused us to examine our procedures.  I wonder, in retrospect,
if by posting our very drafty copy cataloging procedures, we may have
caused even more angst about our change than we intended.  Once we have
a final version of the procedures, we will re-post them to the CONSER
webpage.

I delayed my response to the CONSERlst so that I could discuss LC's
intent to use "lccopycat" with the PCC Policy Committee at their
annual meeting on November 4.  You will likely soon see an announcement
on this matter from them.

I'm going to try - again - to explain how we will handle
"lccopycat" records and the expectations CONSER institutions may
have with them.

The philosophy behind this change addresses our need to find more cost
effective ways of handling our cataloging in the face of the ever
increasing cost of personnel. With the mandate to reduce the cost of
cataloging throughout LC, we need to maximize the staff resources that
we have and reserve catalogers' time for original descriptive and
subject cataloging and have our cataloging technicians take on the
primary responsibility for copy cataloging.

To enable cataloging technicians to take on this responsibility, they
receive extensive classroom training including: Cataloging concepts;
MARC tagging; AACR2 and RI; Classweb; identifying series vs serial vs
monograph; shelflisting; editing bibliographic records and searching the
authority file in OCLC.  They also spend at least six months under the
tutelage of a senior cataloger during which time they first copy catalog
with CONSER records; learn to recognize elements in subject,  name, and
series authority records, and have full review and discussion of their
work.  Questions or titles with complicated problems that cannot be
resolved by technicians are referred to catalogers.

I also want to clarify the three authentication codes of "lc"
"lcd" and "lccopycat."  LC will only use "lc" when we
authenticate original records.  LC will retain the "lcd"
authentication as found on those records authenticated by CONSER
institutions.  LC will authenticate as "lccopycat" a non-CONSER
record when we use it as the basis of our copy cataloging.

The presence of "lccopycat" code means all name, series, and LCSH
subject headings will be verified against the relevant authority files
and established if not found.  With the "lccopycat," approach, the
emphasis is on identification of the piece with less emphasis on
description and uniformity of the information in the bibliographic
record. LC will correct obvious typos and egregiously misleading
errors.

Because these records contain authoritative headings, provide
sufficient information for accurate identification and retrieval, LC
feels, and PCC Policy Committee agrees, they add value to the CONSER
database and benefit subscribers that redistribute CONSER records as
part of their services, such as Ex Libris and Serials Solutions. And
because of their coding, the user is fully aware to what extent the
record can be trusted.

LC expects to sample these "lccopycat" records for quality after
the first few months.  I also welcome feedback from CONSER institutions
as you work with the records.  I hope this note helps allay your
concerns about the new authentication code.

When I spoke with the PCC Policy Committee, I mentioned that other
CONSER institutions may wish to implement use of "lccopycat" as an
authentication code. What do you think of this idea?

LC's implementation of lccopycat will be on the agenda for the CONSER
at-large meeting at ALA, so please continue to share your comments and
ideas.

Best wishes to all,  Maureen
 

[TOC] | Cataloging at Yale | [Optional Link]


NOTE: Examples require LucidaSansRLG font to be viewed correctly on web browser.
Copyright © 2006 Yale University Library
Contact: steven.arakawa@yale.edu
Last updated: < 05-Apr-2006 10:40 AM -->
URL: http://