Allen,
Thanks for the definitions. They weren't quite what I was expecting, so
I'm glad I asked. All much clearer now.
A couple of quick points, neither of which contradict anything you say.
1. We all, I'm sure, encounter series, personal and/or corporate names
on a regular basis for which there are no authority records. Until the
growth in international membership of PCC in the mid-90s this was
especially apparent this side of the Atlantic (the authority file was
understandably built on headings needed for US-centric collections).
Whilst some of the missing series *may* be the result of LC's policy
change last year, you can't necessarily tell which they are. What LC's
decision did was make that "gap" in coverage more obvious, perhaps. But
there's nothing fundamentally new in any of this as a result of the LC
series issue.
2. Any cooperative scheme - it doesn't matter whether it's something
like NACO, something looser (for want of a better term), or something
more "controlled" - will have these gaps. And this doesn't apply just to
series authorities, or to authorities generally. As others observed last
week a propos bib records (perhaps it was you yourself - I apologise if
it was), there are always those who are quite prepared to sit on the
sidelines and wait for someone else to do the work. I don't see anything
in your proposed model that overcomes that (or that possibly could,
barring the library equivalent of of a police state...). It doesn't
invalidate any particular model, but it's a fact of life. No model will
deliver 100% of what everyone wants or needs (however "wants" and
"needs" are defined).
> 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!
Can it deliver "more, better, faster, cheaper" (once the meaning of
these terms has been defined in terms both of authority data and of a
new way of looking at "catalogues" and associated services)? Can it be
sufficiently authoritative to be trusted? Are we clear who the "users"
of such data are, and what this means both in the terms of the data
that's collected and the services it might be expected to provide (I
feel this has been less thoroughly discussed on this list for authority
stuff than for bibliographic)? Can it attract contributors how are
prepared to provide data that meets whatever objectives are eventually
agreed upon and who can't or won't join the PCC? (If people don't join
PCC because of lack of institutional support, for example, are they
going to be in any better position to join something else involved in
sort-of-similar work?)
I don't have the answers to these questions, but I think any new model
has to shown it's considered them and has convincing answers. If it's
reasonable to assume that most people signing up as active day-to-day
participants in contributing to such a service will be doing so in
"work" time, using "workplace" resources, working on materials belonging
to their institutions, then it would seem to be a prerequisite that they
have institutional support. Suggesting that it's anything to do with
"social networking" will surely be the kiss of death! One of the
strengths of the PCC is that has all of the framework in place that can
help an institution decide whether or not it wants to commit staff time
to the Program. Some choose not to, of course. Any alternative or
parallel model, such as the one you're outlining, again has to be able
to show the people in charge that institutional commitment is justified.
The people you need to convince aren't on this list (well, no more than
a few). They probably don't right now know what NGC stands for, let
alone what it is. (And there isn't a whole lot to show them just yet,
even as a framework proposal.)
Apologies that my answer to your question wasn't a straight yes or no!
Hugh
--
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)
MULLEN Allen said - in whole or part - on 26/05/2007 15:26:
> 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
Received on Mon May 28 2007 - 01:24:31 EDT