I'm a member of a funnel project (the NACO-Music Project), and things are rather different there. Institutions and individuals must both apply to the funnel. There is a committee within the funnel project that reviews applications. I've been on that committee. All the committee is judging is that there seem to be serious commitment and a possibility of success. Then members of the funnel provide the training, via email, in-person meetings at conventions, telephone calls if necessary, appeals up the hierarchy of the funnel - reaching occasionally to music experts at LC - and whatever else is needed. (Generally, each person who is trained and becomes independent is then eligible to be asked to train others.) The training is very extensive. After training, *individuals* can attain independent status on names, name-titles, or both. The status goes to the trained individual, never to the institution.
For purposes of meeting the quota, the funnel as a whole is considered to be a single institution (that's LC's policy). That means there are no specific quotas for individual contributors or libraries. The funnel has a listserv on which matters related to authority-record creation are discussed, specific rules pointed out or interpreted, etc. Each member, from the start of training, is a member of the listserv. This plus a sort of community monitoring serve to maintain expertise.
Jean
--
Jean Harden, Music Catalog Librarian
Libraries
University of North Texas
PO Box 305190
Denton, TX 76203-5190
(940) 565-2860
jharden_at_library.unt.edu
>>> On 5/25/2007 at 12:03 PM, in message
<4656DE94020000C2000154C9_at_ntgwgate.loc.gov>, Ann Della Porta <adel_at_LOC.GOV>
wrote:
> As the former coordinator of cooperative cataloging programs at the Library
> of Congress, I think I can clarify a few points.
> Any library is eligible to join the Program for Cooperative Cataloging
> (PCC) and participate in NACO. There two basic requirements: 1) the library
> must contribute via a utility; and 2) member institutions must contribute a
> minimum number of records (new and changes) in order to justify the cost of
> training, documentation, etc. and to maintain expertise. Large libraries
> (ARL and national libraries) must contribute at least 200 new or modified
> name and series authority records. Small libraries (state, public, college,
> special libraries, and those with specialized collections) are required to
> contribute at least 100 new or modified name and series authority records.
> There is an FAQ on joining NACO at:
> http://www.loc.gov/catdir/pcc/naco/nacoprogfaq.html
> There is no committee that decides NACO membership. Any library may
> submit an application (http://www.loc.gov/catdir/pcc/naco/nacoappl.html). If
> the applying library meets the requirements and can make arrangements for
> training, the library will be accepted into the program. I see from the
> website that PCC Series Training and Train the Series Trainer courses were
> offered for NACO participants here last week.
>
> Ann Della Porta
> Assistant Coordinator
> ILS Program Office
> Library of Congress
> Washington, DC 20540-4010
> adel_at_loc.gov
>
> Opinions expressed in this message are those of the author, and do not
> necessarily reflect the position of the Library of Congress.
>
>>>> Karen Coyle <kcoyle_at_KCOYLE.NET> 05/25/07 11:52 AM >>>
> Jean Harden wrote:
>> Karen -
>>
>> What's the difference between your constructs "a small set of elite
> libraries is authorized to add and change records" (NACO) and "limit input to
> a trusted set of experts" (the proposed wiki)?
> No difference -- I see them as the same thing. I probably didn't explain
> it well. :-) - kc
>
>> The notion of limiting "the 'record' portion to experts" and allowing "other
> users to have a sandbox for whatever information they wish to add" is new
> (the sandbox part) and potentially useful, it seems to me, but you still need
> those "experts." How are they going to come to exist if not through some sort
> of application and training process? And who is going to oversee that
> process?
>>
> That's where my "committee in charge" comes in. As it is today, as far
> as I know no one "revises" every NACO record -- the trained catalogers
> in those elite libraries are expected to know what they are doing. They
> use the cataloging rules (and I assume we will still have those) and
> learn this skill at library school (ditto) or on the job. It's the
> "committee in charge" (that meets a few times a year) that decides who
> gets to be part of that elite (not individual persons but libraries).
>
> What this brings up for me is that we need a standards group that
> maintains this cataloging standard, not at the AACR/RDA level but at the
> more practical level, the NACO level. What will be the mechanism to
> suggest changes, discuss difficult areas, etc? It would seem that you
> would need some kind of direct connection between the standard and the
> actual practice. Note that I'm not sure how we manage this today, actually.
>
> kc
>> Jean
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Jean Harden, Music Catalog Librarian
>> Libraries
>> University of North Texas
>> PO Box 305190
>> Denton, TX 76203-5190
>> (940) 565-2860
>> jharden_at_library.unt.edu
>>
>>
>>
>>>>> On 5/25/2007 at 10:10 AM, in message <4656FC5E.7010501_at_kcoyle.net>, Karen
> Coyle
>>>>>
>> <kcoyle_at_KCOYLE.NET> wrote:
>> ...
>>
>>> I presume we are talking about the first use, a large database of
>>> authority "copy" that can be updated by librarians but that is mainly
>>> used to download data into library catalogs. This is basically the NACO
>>> model, although in that one a small set of elite libraries is authorized
>>> to add and change records. And there's no reason why this "wiki" model
>>> couldn't limit input to a trusted set of experts. Or at least limit the
>>> "record" portion to experts, and allow other users to have a sandbox for
>>> whatever information they wish to add.
>>>
>> ...
>>
>>> kc
>>> -----------------------------------
>>> Karen Coyle / Digital Library Consultant
>>> kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://www.kcoyle.net
>>> ph.: 510-540-7596 skype: kcoylenet
>>> fx.: 510-848-3913
>>> mo.: 510-435-8234
>>> ------------------------------------
>>>
>>
>>
>
> --
> -----------------------------------
> Karen Coyle / Digital Library Consultant
> kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://www.kcoyle.net
> ph.: 510-540-7596 skype: kcoylenet
> fx.: 510-848-3913
> mo.: 510-435-8234
> ------------------------------------
Received on Fri May 25 2007 - 11:38:10 EDT