FINAL REPORT: PCC 042 Task Force

Summary

The PCC 042 Task Force (Jain Fletcher, UCLA; Kate Harcourt, Columbia; Jennifer Bowen, University of Rochester (Chair)) was charged to explore the usefulness of developing a code for inclusion in the 042 field of a bibliographic record which would indicate that access points for names on pre-AACR2 records have been evaluated and established to current rules and which are represented by records in the national authority file.

After consulting with representatives from appropriate agencies (OCLC, RLG, CONSER) and conducting a survey of BIBCO libraries, the Task Group recommends that no action be taken to develop such a code for inclusion in the bibliographic 042 field.

Utility representatives expressed significant concern about the development effort necessary to implement such a code and the appropriateness of developing such a code only for PCC use and at this particular time.

Responses from Technical Services administrators at BIBCO libraries were split between those who supported such a code (39%) and those who opposed it (57%), but clearly no mandate exists among current BIBCO libraries that would justify the effort necessary to bring this code to fruition.

The original discussion that prompted the consideration of a new 042 code was a desire by one BIBCO library (Eastman School of Music) to include bibliographic records with pre-AACR2 descriptions as BIBCO records, thus increasing the usability of these records for other libraries. The Task Group notes that some measure of this same increased usability will also be achieved with the planned implementation of linked authorities by at least one of the bibliographic utilities. The Task Group agrees with several survey respondents who commented that they would prefer that the utilities spend their development efforts in this area rather than in developing a new code for the 042.

Additional Comments

Because we are recommending against the development of a new 042 code, the Task Group did not complete two aspects of our original charge:

As shown by some of the comments by survey respondents (below), some found the wording of our charge, as repeated in our survey, to

"Explore the usefulness of developing a code for inclusion in the 042 field of a bibliographic record which would indicate that access points for names [italics mine] on pre-AACR2 records have been evaluated "

Appendix: Summary of Survey Results

1. Do you believe that this code could provide useful information to help
     streamline your operations?
  
             YES:   9   (39%)
              NO:  13   (57%)
       UNCERTAIN:   1   (4%)
  
COMMENTS:
[NO]  Most of us are unconvinced that a new code would facilitate streamlining.  We
maintain a list of OCLC contributors whose copy we accept without review.  Records
labeled pcc in 042 are also accepted without review.  Other copy gets bounced to 
complex copy catalogers who are not expected to verify every heading.  Thus, since
we don't already verify all headings in most of our copy, the addition of a new 042
is not likely to contribute to streamlining of our workflow.
                 ****
[YES]  We believe that the code would enable us to funnel this copy into our quick
cataloging workflow, thus speeding up the cataloging process.

  
2.  Would you be willing to commit resources to apply this code properly and ensure its
accuracy?
  
             YES:   5  (22%)
              NO:  12  (52%)
       UNCERTAIN:   6  (26%)     
  
COMMENTS:
[NO]  If we are going to lock and upgrade or enhance an OCLC record that is pre-
AACR2, we will upgrade the record completely to AACR2, at which point it would be
eligible to be coded pcc if authorities are available for all access points.  
Otherwise, we will not lock the record in the first place and just edit it for
our local use.
                 ****
[YES]  A qualified yes in the sense that we wouldn't mandate that all pre-AACR2 copy
be handled this way.  We would add the code to records selectively.

 
 
3.  The CONSER program currently uses the 042 code "lcd" to indicate that the
headings on a record have been evaluated against the authority file and also that the
description has been verified (but not necessarily upgraded, if pre-AACR2).  Should a
new 042 for monographs also include this element of verifying (but not upgrading) the
bibliographic description to parallel the use of this CONSER code?
    
             YES:   8  (38%)
              NO:  12  (52%)
       UNCERTAIN:   3  (13%)     
  
COMMENTS:
[NO] We would not be likely to spend the time locking pre-AACR2 records just to
upgrade the headings on those records.  If we lock, we will upgrade the description to
AACR2.
                 ****
[NO]  I think this is impossible, if the verification means assuring that the record accords
with pre-AACR2 rules.  Descriptive verification according to older codes is generally a
lost art.
  

  
4.  Who should be authorized to apply this new code? (choose one)
  
       BIBCO libraries only:     6
       BIBCO and NACO:          11
       OTHER (please explain):   0
       NO ONE:                   1
  
COMMENTS:
If such a code is established and authorized, we think that both BIBCO and NACO
libraries ought to be able to apply it to records.
                 ****
Given my "NO" responses above, I obviously do not think that anyone should be
authorized for this.

  
5.  Do you have any preferences about the name of the new code?  e.g.,
  
            naco:     5
            auth:     3
            other:  pccm  ;     pcc-v {meaning "verified")
            no:       6
  
COMMENTS related to Q5:
We think "naco" is more accurate than "auth" because its application would reflect the
status of name headings, rather than authority-controlled headings in general.
                 ****
We don't have a preference;  "naco" would seemingly be clearly indicative of the fact that
name headings are backed up by authorities;  "auth" would imply that both name and
subject headings have been verified.

6.  Additional comments are welcome:
  
"Consider urging the utilities (RLIN, OCLC) into putting more resources into
access point validation."
                 ****
"Overall we think that use of a 042 code as described by the PCC 042 Task Group
is a good idea.  As indicated in our comments above, we don't think that the code would
comprise a significant part of our copy cataloging workflow and recon projects. 
However, this code could be something that [our] original catalogers might use when
upgrading copy for materials in their workflow."
                 ****
"Catalogers here agree strongly with the BIBCO OpCo that all records labeled
'pcc' should be fully compliant with AACR2.  
Several catalogers pointed out that OCLC used to identify specific headings under
authority control with a control subfield w in the fields of the specific headings.
Isn't this abandoned practice what this 042 proposal seems to be recreating in a new way?
The presence of a code in 042 does NOT guarantee that the headings will always
match the authority file, since libraries are not required to do or to report BFM to OCLC
when they change an authority record. 
Why is this discussion limited to just name headings?  In many cases on pre-
AACR2 records the subject headings are completely obsolete (this is even the case on
DLC records).  If a library is going to go to the trouble of verifying and establishing
authorities for names, we think that they should also verify and correct subjects if 
needed. Then a single code (if it is the decision of the PoCo to request the 
establishment of such a code) could be created for all headings, names and subjects,
indicating that they were all backed up by authority records at the time the library
upgraded the bibliographic record. 
Why code a record for names while leaving obsolete subject headings, or subject
headings that are not as specific as they should be, on it?
This survey has made us wonder whether the existing code 'pcc' is the most
optimal code to use on BIBCO records.  Only monographic records are coded 'pcc',
while CONSER records get a different code.  Why isn't CONSER switching over to using
the 'pcc' code as well so that ALL PCC records are coded the same way?  This would
also cut down on the proliferation of 042 codes.  Perhaps if this is not desirable, BIBCO
records should be coded 'bibco' instead of 'pcc'."
                ****
"An alternative suggested by one of our catalogers would be to define a new
encoding level and continue to use 'pcc' in the 042 field as a means of conveying the
same information.  Of course, this would take more time to implement."
               ****
"Just checking headings is not enough for PCC standards for subject analysis, call
number currency, etc.  There may be some benefit, but there needs to be a clear way to
distinguish between full pcc and headings check."
                ****
"I polled a group of librarians in order to answer the survey.  One librarian
suggested the possibility of allowing Enhance libraries to apply the code, possibly
with a different name.  
Was there any discussion about using this code to verify series as well as names?"
               ****
"At my institution, AACR2 LC records and PCC records are considered the same
way and placed in the same backlog.
I do not think that we would have a separate workflow for non-AACR2 records
with nacoed headings.  We would treat these as non-PCC and include them in the regular
copy cataloging backlog.
This proposed code would most likely benefit libraries with very large
collections."
                 ****
"The staff [here] to whom this would affect tell me that we would gain no
cataloging efficiencies if this code were approved.  We treat PCC copy no 
differently than LC or any other.  We prefer to stick with the current PCC
standards without adding on another level of practice/procedure related to PCC.
However, if the new code is approved, we think it would be great if there were a
financial incentive for those who apply it."
                ****
"The proposed code would be of no advantage to [our library], since we rely on
post-cataloging vendor processing for authorities verification on copy cataloging and
retrospective conversion.  Also, while new pcc records are likely to be encountered and
used soon after their creation (giving a high probability that the records still conform to
standards), older records may be encountered and used at any time, so that the proposed
code would not be a reliable indication of the validity of headings.
We would prefer that PCC direct its efforts to encouraging OCLC to develop
linked authorities within World Cat, building on the work done for CORC.  Such
development would have a much greater impact."
                 ****
"I assume that the proposal will apply to retrospective conversion records as well
as new cataloging of older materials using pre-AACR2 records.
Could the 042 for authorities be automatically assigned to machine processed
records, assuming all headings match authority records?"
                 ****
"Since concern about quality of BIBCO records has been expressed (re BIBCO at
large meetings and AUTOCAT) we feel that BIBCO records need to be fully AACR2r,
both description and access.  If a code is developed to merely indicate the headings on
any given record have been established AACR2r that's fine, but don't see the need for
such records to be labeled PCC or be strictly from BIBCO libraries.  Many libraries
should be capable of labeling headings as being established AACR2r."
                 ****
"Implementation should not result in records being locked or otherwise
unavailable for other changes for any length of time."
                 ****
"We believe that OpCo was right in thinking that the addition of a new code is an
unnecessary complication in what has already become a confusing array of codes (Elvl,
040, 042) for catalogers.  The core record concept is not yet universally accepted or
understood, and the creation of a new category (non-AACR2 description but AACR2
headings) would almost certainly confuse the situation even more.  We don't believe it's
worth the effort."
                 ****
"Would not affect or fit into our current workflow.
while we think this undertaking would benefit the cataloging community, it
would not be useful for our purposes.  Our workflow is such that we wouldn't use the
information in the 042 for the majority of our copy cataloging.  For our catalogers 
that contribute PCC records, it's just as easy for them to fully upgrade the records
rather than partially.  So, while we're not against this idea, our answers to the first
two questions are 'no'.  Following this rationale, the rest of the questions are really
not applicable to our situation."
                 ****
"Excellent survey, good questions, short and to the point! Thanks."
                 ****
"If we use CONSER practice as a model, authentication of pre-AACR2
monographic records should include all access points, not only the name headings.  This
means that name, subject and series headings in the records, with the exclusion of series
tagged as 490  0, should be evaluated against the LC authority file."
                 ****
"We do not check headings against the authority file when we perform copy
cataloging.  Therefore the use of a special code to indicate that the headings were,
at one time, the same as an authorized form on an authority record is of no use to us. 
We also feel that yet another code in the 042 just extends the confusion as to which
ones we need to attend to and which ones we need to ignore."