Sure, I'll try to explain myself Hugh. By state of limbo, I mean there
has not been a clear statement of intent (that I've seen at least)
regarding how PCC libraries or any other library entity will address the
gap of series authority coverage that results from LC's coverage. I'm
sure many would agree with me that the work NACO libraries continue to
contribute on series authority work is useful. At the same time, I
establish series locally every day, often several times a day, that
appear on copy OCLC records as 490 0 (by far the most common occurrence)
or don't appear on copy at all (less common). The lack of an
understood, widely promulgated, and reliable approach to addressing
these gaps is exactly what I mean by "state of limbo." A recent
conversation with past chair of the PCC, Mark Watson, confirmed to me
that while there are ongoing discussions and working groups on the topic
under that umbrella, basically (as I understood it), PCC libraries would
continue to contribute series authority records in the same manner that
they had before LC's decision - as they encountered them in their own
work if their local policies dictated a need for establishing the series
(and I understand some PCC libraries share in LC's de-emphasis on series
authority establishment).
By "not being maintained", I mean that the series clearly is established
in the publisher's materials, that AACR2 rules provide for establishment
of the series, but that a series authority record does not exist in the
LC NAF.
Hope this helps clarify for you, Hugh. I and others appreciate the work
that NACO libraries are doing but (speaking for myself) recognize that
it is not your responsibility to do everyone's series work (nor was it
really LC's - we just became dependent on the grace of that effort when
it was a priority for their own needs). I think the time is nigh for
working on new models of collaborative, social networking and extended
capabilities for doing this kind of work alongside (not instead of) the
work PCC does.
A question for you as well, if you don't mind: why not? Thank you!
Allen Mullen
cataloger
speaking for myself, not any institution or organization
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Next generation catalogs for libraries
>[mailto:NGC4LIB_at_listserv.nd.edu] On Behalf Of Hugh Taylor
>Sent: Saturday, May 26, 2007 12:04 AM
>To: NGC4LIB_at_listserv.nd.edu
>Subject: Re: [NGC4LIB] Authority maintenance (was Subject costs)
>
>Allen,
>
>Could you explain a little more clearly what you mean here:
>
>> series authority
>> maintenance has remained in a state of limbo for this last year?
>
>In the 6 months from Sept 06, just under 5000 new series
>authorities were created by non-LC NACO participants, and
>maintenance carried out on a further 1611 (data available from
>the PCC Statistics pages). That may not meet everyone's needs
>(it never did, even before the change to LC policy - nor will
>the new service you're starting to outline), but I'm wondering
>if I'm completely misunderstanding your intended meaning of a
>"state of limbo"?
>
>In your Scenario #1 (in a later message) you also said, inter alia:
>
>> quick check of LC Authorities (or OCLC Connexion) confirms that this
>> series is not being maintained.
>
>Again, could you help me understand how you're defining a
>series that is "not being maintained". Do you mean simply that
>there's no authority in LC/OCLC etc? ("Not being maintained"
>suggests to me that data exists, but is somehow frozen in time
>and all further work on it has ceased, but that doesn't seem
>to fit either the scenario or the way the LC/NACO file
>works.)
>
>Thanks in advance,
>--
>Hugh Taylor
>Head, Collection Development and Description Cambridge
>University Library West Road, Cambridge CB3 9DR, England
>
>email: jrht3_at_cam.ac.uk fax: +44 (0)1223 333160
>phone: +44 (0)1223 333069 (with voicemail) or
>phone: +44 (0)1223 333000 (ask for pager 036)
>
Received on Sat May 26 2007 - 08:17:55 EDT