PCC SCT Task Group on PCC Participant and Training Documentation: Final Report
28 December 2000
The Program for Cooperative Cataloging Standing Committee on Training Task
Group on PCC Participant and Training Documentation was formed in late April
2000, in response to requests from the cataloguing community that PCC documentation
be made more widely available, including requests for online access. The PCC
Policy Committee charged this group with the following series of overlapping
charges:
- Investigate methods for keeping training and participant documentation
up to date and to explore a variety of delivery mechanisms for the documentation
- Prepare a functional evaluation of different delivery mechanisms for documentation
- Analyze the cost implications of making existing documentation more widely
available and specifically explore cost recovery options
- Analyze the copyright issues relating to PCC documentation
- Recommend methods for making existing documentation more widely available
- Describe the support required from the PCC and others for carrying out
the recommendations
- Develop a plan for sharing responsibility for updating documentation among
a wider group of PCC members
Some preliminary notes on the scope and approach of our work:
- Implicit in our charge is a focus on document delivery rather than content.
- While our focus has been on formal documentation, a number of our conclusions
may apply to all types of documentation.
- Our primary method of communication has been e-mail; in addition, we met
as a group during the ALA Annual Conference, on July 8.
Our projects:
- Investigate methods for keeping training and participant documentation
up to date and explore a variety of delivery mechanisms for the documentation.
We began by attempting to assess the current situation. We drew
up a list of current formal PCC documentation, listing the current
delivery mechanism(s) for each one.
| Current PCC Documentation
|
| Component |
Tool |
Delivery Mechanism |
| CONSER |
CONSER Cataloging Manual |
print; Cataloger's Desktop; Web (Cataloger's Reference
Shelf)
|
|
CONSER Editing Guide |
print; Cataloger's Desktop; Web (Cataloger's Reference
Shelf) |
| NACO |
NACO Participants' Manual |
print; Cataloger's Desktop; Web (Cataloger's Reference
Shelf) |
|
NACO Trainers' Manual |
print |
|
NACO Training Manual |
print |
|
NACO Series Training Manual |
print |
|
NACO Series Participants' Manual |
planned |
| BIBCO |
BIBCO Trainers' Manual |
print |
|
BIBCO Training Manual |
print |
|
BIBCO Participants' Manual |
in development |
| SACO |
SACO Participants' Manual |
in development |
After discussing different potential documentation delivery mechanisms,
we also prepared a list of them, stressing three, namely:
- Print documentation
- Web-based documentation (primarily HTML documents; also
pdf files)
- LC's Cataloger's Desktop/Classification Plus.
In addition, we looked more briefly at a few other mechanisms:
- E-mail
- PowerPoint presentations
- Downloadable files (which could be made available via the Web).
- Prepare a functional evaluation of different delivery mechanisms
for documentation.
We then undertook a functional evaluation of the different mechanisms:
setting financial and legal issues aside for the time being, we explored
and discussed the relative strengths and weaknesses of different
mechanisms. We considered such factors as:
- Ease of access (e.g., whether special equipment, software, or
subscription arrangements are required)
- Ease of searching and browsing
- Flexibility of design and display
- Ease of updating (both through general revision and local annotation)
- Portability
- Visual factors, such as ease of inclusion of graphics, potential
eyestrain, etc.
- Reliability of later retrieval, as opposed to risk of losing
information
- Some essentially psychological factors, such as the potentially
intimidating effect of large paper documents or the perceived informality
of e-mail communications
A copy of this functional evaluation is included in the Appendix.
Our general conclusions from this comparative analysis, as stated
in the functional evaluation, are that "different mechanisms
have different, often complementary strengths and weaknesses. There
is no one overall preferred mechanism; the choice tends to depend
on the context and purpose of the use of the documentation. For example,
what works best for one-time training of beginners in a workshop
may not be the best approach for ongoing reference use by experienced
users. People working at a workstation at medium-to-large institutions
may well have different preferences from those of people working
at home or in small institutions without subscriptions to Cataloger's
Desktop.
The challenge of providing effective documentation delivery mechanisms
will be to provide for a range of different purposes, while designing
documentation to emphasize the strengths and mitigate the weaknesses
of different mechanisms. Effective delivery is thus bound up with
careful design. In short, for optimal functionality we need to
be able to provide flexibility."
This recommendation of providing documentation in multiple formats is
also consistent with discussion about the BIBCO Participants' Manual
in the SCT meeting at ALA on 9 July 2000, during which it was noted
that, "although electronic distribution of documentation is
a preferred option for many and facilitates indexing, it is not an
option for all potential users of the manual and the documentation
should be useful in both print and electronic forms."
Online delivery mechanisms, generally, offer convenient desktop
access. In addition to Cataloger's Desktop, we explored two types
of Web-based files:
- downloadable files provided via the Web, such as pdf
files
- HTML files
With downloadable files, local institutions would have the option
of downloading the files to desktop or LAN and/or printing them --
or selected sections of them -- as needed. The desire to be able
to print specific sections of documents locally has been a repeated
motif of task group discussions. The responsibility and expenses
involved in tracking the numbers of copies of manuals needed and
in copying or printing manuals would in effect be shifted from LC
onto local institutions, while shipping costs and time delays could
be avoided altogether. (See also below, in section 3, on cost implications
of decentralized printing.) Downloadable files thus have real potential
for resolving some of the problems encountered when we have focused
on distributing paper documents, without sacrificing many of the
advantages of paper for those institutions that want to use paper
documents or in those situations in which paper documents are particularly
useful. Even so, there may continue to be some advantages to having
printed copies of training manuals used in LC training sessions printed
and assembled centrally at LC, so that trainers can be more certain
of consistency among all copies of the manuals, including the insertion
of binder tabs.
In comparison with pdf files, HTML files tend to provide greater
ease of consulting online, without necessarily downloading a document.
Hyperlinks generally make HTML Web files easier to use for quick
reference than pdf files, although printed pdf files could be a more
convenient format for training documentation. In other words, each
type of file is particularly useful for somewhat different purposes.
From a technical point of view, we believe that providing documentation
in more than one format is a realistic goal. While we are fully aware
that print documentation and HTML Web documents should not always
be identical in design and that adaptation from one format to the
other is often needed (at the most basic practical level, breaking
down documentation into multiple, more manageable segments), we also
think that the process of providing Web versions of printed documentation
is becoming easier and quicker, due both to available technology
and to changes in conceptualizing documents.
- Some people find HTML editors and design software helpful in
their work. Basic HTML markup can be provided relatively painlessly.
(However, adapting documents to make the most effective use of
the potential of Web design still requires experience.)
- As people work now on paper versions of procedural and training
documentation, they often already have an HTML Web version in the
back of their minds, so they start anticipating links, tables,
and other document interrelationships as they compose the paper
versions. In other words, if people plan for multiple versions
right from the beginning, the process of preparing them becomes
smoother.
- With the appropriate software, word-processed paper documentation
can be converted to pdf file format fairly easily. It would
also be possible to scan documents (for example, those
sections of the NACO Training Manual that are photocopies
rather than internally word-processed documents).
- Analyze the cost implications of making existing documentation more
widely available and specifically explore cost recovery options.
Having drawn these conclusions about delivery mechanisms in a
fairly abstract context -- in an ideal world -- we then tried to
put them into the context of the real world of PCC documentation,
which is created by real people in real and distinct units, generally
functioning under definite time and funding constraints.
As detailed further in the outline below (following section 5),
four bodies have been responsible for the PCC documentation issued
to date or currently in preparation:
- LC Serial Record Division
- LC Cataloging Distribution Service (CDS)
- LC Cooperative Cataloging Team
- PCC Standing Committee on Training (SCT)
We obtained a summary of current costs for producing selected
PCC documentation from LC Cooperative Cataloging Team Program Specialist
Cornelia Goode. Although we were not able to obtain further data
on current costs, the figures that we do have confirm that $12,620
was spent in the fiscal year 2000 through May for producing and
distributing PCC documentation. Of this amount, a total of $4,012
was spent on printing and $3,557 on mailing. It should be noted
that costs for the writing aspects of preparation are difficult
to quantify.
In discussing the advantages and disadvantages of each delivery
approach, we attempted to balance information dissemination
needs and financial concerns. Ideally, we hope to concentrate
on what should be the primary goal, namely, expanding the distribution
of useful documentation; while addressing the concern about cost
recovery, we do not want a focus on cost recovery to overshadow
the primary goal. We are also aware that a number of complex issues
are involved. For example, a meaningful measure of cost should
ideally include the cost of people's time, although that may be
difficult to quantify. The concern has also been brought up that,
for any plan to be successful, enough financial cushion and institutional
support should be available to cover the timing and unpredictability
of cost recovery.
The new technologies in themselves should help to result in some
cost as well as time savings, after the initial setup of online
documentation. With the availability of HTML Web files and downloadable
files printed locally, we anticipate that there would be less demand
for print copies of documentation than there is currently. Thus,
the general burden on LC connected with providing print copies
could be reduced, saving not only printing costs themselves but
also staff time involved in printing and packing for shipment,
together with the costs and time lag required by shipping. Local
institutions would absorb the costs of any local printing, but
such printing might often be done simply at individual cataloguer
workstations, with costs incorporated into general costs for paper,
printer ribbons, and so forth.
Our best-case scenario recommendations would be for the units
involved in the production and distribution of documentation
to provide Web access and downloadable files for free to PCC
participants, if an increased share of the labor involved in
documentation preparation, conversion, and updating is taken
on by PCC institutions other than LC. We believe that this
model should be possible in the case of documentation for which
the LC Cooperative Cataloging Team and the PCC SCT have been
responsible.
If such provision of free access is not possible in all cases,
then it may be necessary to provide online versions for a fee.
This scenario may apply particularly to LC's Cataloging Distribution
Service, which is mandated to provide for cost recovery in its
operations, including the distribution of CONSER documentation.
We have not drawn any definite conclusions as to how such charges
would be administered, since we believe that the unit(s) involved
should be left to make that decision. In informal discussions
on the topic, it occurred to us that charging might need to be
handled on a subscription basis, because charges per documentation
use could be so cumbersome to track, invoice, etc., that the
extra work involved would swallow up much of the income. If a
subscription fee to access CONSER documentation online were necessary,
it should be lower for PCC members than current subscription
fees for Cataloger's Desktop. Reasons for a lower subscription
fee include:
- smaller package size
- the involvement of PCC participants in providing the content
for the documentation
If such fees could be kept low, it would make it possible for
smaller members to subscribe, even if they could not afford the
entire Cataloger's Desktop package.
We also researched models of document delivery costs and pricing
policies applied by other organizations, particularly OCLC, which
was contacted by task group member Lois Sewell. One factor that
we noted in OCLC's experience, based on a 1995 document, was the
relatively high cost of printing as an element of documentation
preparation costs. Partly in response to this challenge, as well
as to provide expanded access and ensure currency, OCLC now provides
both pdf and HTML versions of documentation such as the OCLC
Cataloging Service User Guide. While the particular percentage
of costs required for printing would partly be a function of the
size and scope of OCLC's operation, the general pattern reinforced
our sense that an approach to document delivery that reduces and
decentralizes printing requirements should help to reduce expenses
and to distribute them more evenly. The approach taken by OCLC
provided a model that we adapted as part of our recommendations
(see outline below, following section 5).
- Analyze the copyright issues relating to PCC documentation.
Task group member Carolyn Sturtevant contacted Linda Jarmy of LC's
Cataloging Distribution Service (CDS), to learn CDS's perspective on
the copyright issue, particularly whether any restrictions or complications
exist with regard to alternative, wider redistribution of documents
distributed by CDS. We have confirmed that, while materials produced
by governmental agencies in general are public domain, much of the
documentation that PCC libraries use originates from a specific office
or group, and permission to copy and redistribute each of the materials
should be sought from the authoring office. For example, we would
need the permission of the LC Cooperative Cataloging Team to distribute
the NACO documents and that of the LC Serial Record Division to distribute
the CONSER documents.
As we understand it, the PCC itself would be able to make decisions
directly about distribution of the BIBCO manuals (Trainer's Manual,
Training Manual, Participants' Manual) and the planned SACO Participants'
Manual.
This need for the permission of each of the various units involved
should be kept in mind when consulting the outline below (following
section 5) of recommendations for each PCC document. This permission
and cooperation would be critical for the adoption of our recommendations.
- Combined charges:
Recommend methods for making existing documentation more
widely available.
Describe the support required from the PCC and others for carrying
out the recommendations.
Develop a plan for sharing responsibility for updating documentation
among a wider group of PCC members.
We examined potential methods for creating, maintaining, and updating
each PCC document, taking into consideration the responsible body
or bodies, the different delivery mechanisms, and financial implications.
The goal of spreading the responsibility more widely among PCC
members was also kept in mind.
Balancing centralization and decentralization: It quickly
became clear that more decentralized participation in the preparation
and maintenance of documentation needs to be balanced by some type
of centralized coordination, in the interests of consistency and
continuity. Put in slightly different terms, an ongoing challenge
is to balance the need for efficient, coordinated organization
and continuity with the need to distribute the workload as fairly
as possible. In addition, more widespread direct access to PCC
documentation from local desktops should ideally be facilitated
by a more uniform location where documentation could be found,
since different documents currently are obtained from different
sources. (A relevant phrase that keeps cropping up is "one-stop
shopping.")
To contribute to addressing this multifaceted balancing act, we
propose the following measures:
- PCC documentation provided via the Web should be accessible from
the PCC Web site on the LC server. If LC is willing to provide
its server to host PCC documentation files, users can locate and
access documentation more efficiently than if different institutions
host documents as people at them work on those documents. Continuity
is also maintained, since otherwise, the PCC documentation files
might have to keep migrating from server to server as people at different
institutions took them on, which, among other problems, would be
a nuisance for PCC members trying to access those files.
- PCC member institutions should help with the preparation and revision
of documentation and with any conversion of documentation to online
versions. This assistance would be critical in reducing the burden
on LC staff. PCC member volunteers could participate in the work
of the actual updating of the content of files. This content would
be reviewed and approved, perhaps under the leadership of the PCC
Standing Committee on Training. The files could then be converted
to the appropriate format and sent to someone at LC, who would simply
need to mount them. Of course, LC units could continue to be responsible
for the updating of the content of any documentation that they wanted
to continue to maintain.
In some cases, volunteers would (individually or as a group)
explicitly take on responsibility for preparing or revising
particular documents or document sections. More informal
collaboration should also be encouraged, whereby people in
different institutions would provide examples and other additions
to PCC documentation. They could also make locally developed
documentation available through a mechanism such as the PCC
list. Regardless of the format of document delivery, we recommend
providing open communication channels to facilitate the sharing
of suggested revisions to existing documents.
Our task group has not discussed in any detail the issue of the content
of documentation, which is being addressed, for example, by the PCC SCT
Task Group on NACO Continuing Education. In general, however, we also
see content-related advantages to a more decentralized preparation of
documentation, which would benefit from the expertise and practical experience
of individuals working at a variety of institutions, particularly as
the PCC becomes more international in scope.
- A PCC SCT Subcommittee on Participant Documentation could be charged
with overseeing and coordinating the preparation, updating, and distribution
of all formal PCC documentation. It could also undertake an ongoing
review of the methods for distribution of PCC documentation, to ensure
that adequate and appropriate document distribution exists. Whether
given this or some other name, such a structure would serve as a critical
link among the units responsible for issuing documentation and the
people involved in preparing and revising it. While the SCT would have
ultimate responsibility, as charged, for the identification, promotion,
and distribution of PCC documentation, much of the work of coordination
could be delegated to the subcommittee.
Some suggestions for the structure of this subcommittee: By rotating
membership, participating institutions could share tasks, and individual
volunteers would have limited terms, while staggered terms of office
could help to provide continuity.
Outline of current and proposed documentation delivery methods
After considerable discussion, we drew up an outline of different delivery
mechanisms that merged several elements of our charge, broken down in
terms of different PCC documentation, and taking into consideration for
each document:
- The body or bodies involved in its creation and maintenance. Again,
the permission and cooperation of each responsible body would be necessary
as decisions about delivery mechanisms and updating methods were made.
- Current methods of documentation delivery:
- Print
- Cataloger's Desktop
- Web, via The Library Corporation site, Cataloger's
Reference Shelf.
- Recommended methods of documentation delivery, as appropriate:
- Print
- Online (via PCC Web site maintained at LC server)
- pdf files
- HTML files.
- Cataloger's Desktop. A general note: We are not recommending
at this point that training manuals be included in Cataloger's
Desktop, since they are designed to be used in conjunction with
training sessions for PCC members specifically, not as stand-alone "do-it-yourself" documents
for the entire Cataloger's Desktop market.
We have not specifically included the Cataloger's Reference Shelf
in our recommended methods because of our concern that it would
be risky to rely on it too much or too exclusively for long-term
planning, due to the combination of the difference in mission between
the PCC and a profit-oriented corporation and the notorious volatility
of Web sites. In the short run, however, the availability of certain
documents in HTML format as part of this site may reduce the urgency
of a need for other HTML versions of these particular documents
(see also below, under "Short-term and long-term projects").
- Recommendations regarding any fees to be charged (in some cases,
providing free documentation, while in others providing for charging
fees in order to recover costs).
CONSER
CONSER Cataloging Manual
Produced by LC Serial Record Division with input from CONSER
members
Updated by LC Serial Record Division with input from CONSER members
Current delivery methods:
Proposed delivery methods:
- print (purchase through CDS)
- Cataloger's Desktop (subscription through CDS)
Ideally, we would like to propose:
- pdf version (free at PCC Web site)
- HTML version (free at PCC Web site)
Alternatively, if CDS makes the CONSER Cataloging Manual available
in these formats and needs to charge for online access in order to recover
costs:
- pdf version (for subscription fee or document charge through CDS)
- HTML version (for subscription fee or document charge through CDS)
CONSER Editing Guide
Produced by LC Serial Record Division with input from CONSER
members
Updated by LC Serial Record Division with input from CONSER members
Current delivery methods:
Proposed delivery methods:
- print (purchase through CDS)
- Cataloger's Desktop (subscription through CDS)
Ideally, we would like to propose:
- pdf version (free at PCC Web site)
- HTML version (free at PCC Web site)
Alternatively, if CDS makes the CONSER Cataloging Manual available in
these formats and needs to charge for online access in order to recover
costs:
- pdf version (for subscription fee or document charge through CDS)
- HTML version (for subscription fee or document charge through CDS)
NACO
NACO Participants' Manual
2nd edition produced by LC Cooperative Cataloging Team with
help from NACO participants and others at LC and based on 1st edition
produced outside LC Not currently updated
Current delivery methods:
- print (free from LC Cooperative Cataloging Team to participants in
- training sessions, as part of NACO Training Manual)
- print (purchase through CDS)
- Cataloger's Desktop (subscription through CDS)
- Cataloger's Reference Shelf (free at The Library Corporation Web
site) http://www.tlcdelivers.com/tlc/crs/naco0131.htm
Proposed delivery methods:
- print (free from LC Cooperative Cataloging Team, ideally both to
participants in
- training sessions, as part of NACO Training Manual, and separately)
- Cataloger's Desktop (subscription through CDS)
- pdf version (free at PCC Web site)
- HTML version (free at PCC Web site)
NACO Trainers' Manual
Produced by LC Cooperative Cataloging Team
Updated by LC Cooperative Cataloging Team
Current delivery methods:
- print (free from LC Cooperative Cataloging Team to participants in
training sessions)
Proposed delivery methods:
- print (free from LC Cooperative Cataloging Team to participants in
training sessions)
- pdf version (free at PCC Web site)
- HTML version (free at PCC Web site)
NACO Training Manual
Produced by LC Cooperative Cataloging Team
Updated by LC Cooperative Cataloging Team
Current delivery methods:
- print (free from LC Cooperative Cataloging Team to participants in
training sessions)
Proposed delivery methods:
- print (free from LC Cooperative Cataloging Team to participants in
training sessions)
- pdf version (free at PCC Web site)
- HTML version (free at PCC Web site)
NACO Series Training Manual
Produced by LC Cooperative Cataloging Team
Updated by LC Cooperative Cataloging Team
Current delivery methods:
- print (free from LC Cooperative Cataloging Team to participants
in training sessions)
Proposed delivery methods:
- print (free from LC Cooperative Cataloging Team to participants in
training sessions)
- pdf version (free at PCC Web site)
- HTML version (free at PCC Web site)
NACO Series Participants' Manual
To be produced and updated by LC Cooperative Cataloging Team
Current delivery methods:
Proposed delivery methods:
- print (free from LC Cooperative Cataloging Team)
- Cataloger's Desktop (subscription through CDS)
- pdf version (free at PCC Web site)
- HTML version (free at PCC Web site)
BIBCO
BIBCO Trainers' Manual
Produced by PCC Standing Committee on Training
Updated by PCC Standing Committee on Training
Current delivery methods:
- print (free from LC Cooperative Cataloging Team to participants
in training sessions)
Proposed delivery methods:
- print (free from LC Cooperative Cataloging Team to participants in
training sessions)
- pdf version (free at PCC Web site)
- HTML version (free at PCC Web site)
BIBCO Training Manual
Produced by PCC Standing Committee on Training
Updated by PCC Standing Committee on Training
Current delivery methods:
- print (free from LC Cooperative Cataloging Team to participants
in training sessions)
Proposed delivery methods:
- print (free from LC Cooperative Cataloging Team to participants in
training sessions)
- pdf version (free at PCC Web site)
- HTML version (free at PCC Web site)
BIBCO Participants' Manual
Produced by PCC Standing Committee on Training
Updated by PCC Standing Committee on Training
Current delivery methods:
Proposed delivery methods:
- print (free from LC Cooperative Cataloging Team)
- Cataloger's Desktop (subscription through CDS)
- pdf version (free at PCC Web site)
- HTML version (free at PCC Web site)
SACO
SACO Participants' Manual
Produced by Adam Schiff
Current delivery methods:
Proposed delivery methods:
- print (free from LC Cooperative Cataloging Team)
- Cataloger's Desktop (subscription through CDS)
- pdf version (free at PCC Web site)
- HTML version (free at PCC Web site)
Some additional considerations
Short-term and long-term projects: We are aware that the overall "package" of
recommendations for enhanced distribution is an ambitious one, and we would
not expect all of it to be implemented immediately. Some possible considerations:
- The following documents may be easier to begin with because they are prepared
and controlled by the PCC itself, so obtaining permission to distribute them
should be relatively easy to obtain. They would also be easier to begin with
because they are currently being prepared or revised and, as a result, are
in files based on fairly up-to-date software that should be relatively easy
to convert to pdf and/or HTML format.
BIBCO Training Manual
BIBCO Participants' Manual (in preparation)
SACO Participants' Manual (in preparation)
- The following documents are currently included as part of Cataloger's Desktop
or otherwise available through CDS, and their status appears more complex.
More time may be needed to obtain permission to distribute them and to work
out the terms of distribution. In addition, it appears less pressing at this
point in time to provide HTML versions of these documents, because they are
currently available as part of Cataloger's
Reference Shelf.
CONSER Cataloging Manual
CONSER Editing Guide
NACO Participants' Manual
- Less manipulation of the data is required to convert word-processed documents
to pdf format than to convert word-processed documents to HTML format. For
this reason, it may be most efficient to prepare pdf files first. HTML Web
versions, including adequate useful hyperlinks, could be prepared as a somewhat
more long-term project.
In the course of further discussions held outside our task group, other factors
may also emerge that will help to clarify the most useful and manageable places
to begin.
NACO Participants' Manual: In our discussions and formulations, we
found NACO documentation to be a particularly complex category. The updating
and current distribution of the NACO Participants' Manual does not follow the
same pattern as the NACO Training and Trainers' manuals, since the NACO Participants' Manual
is handled by more than one LC unit right now (the Cooperative Cataloging Team,
for a print version incorporated within the NACO Training Manual, and CDS,
for print and Cataloger's Desktop versions). It kept coming up as an exception
to any generalizations by category of documentation that one tried to make.
Our recommendations for proposed delivery methods for the NACO Participants'
Manual include having the LC Cooperative Cataloging Team assume sole responsibility
for distributing print copies, just as it distributes other NACO manuals. This
suggestion reflects our attempt to find ways of simplifying the distribution
patterns, for the sake of those consulting different NACO materials, and, in
the long run at least, having all NACO manuals available from the same source.
(It is based on the current arrangement of NACO documentation; at some point,
NACO documentation might be revised extensively enough to result in a single
comprehensive NACO manual, which would accomplish similar simplification.)
General comments
With the permission and cooperation of all groups involved, and with the participation
and support of PCC members, we hope that our recommendations would result in
functional, cost-effective, legal, and efficiently "updatable" methods
of distributing PCC documentation more widely, as well as a mechanism to facilitate
coordination and planning for keeping the documentation up to date.
We realize that we may have raised or inspired a number of unresolved questions.
As we understand it, our report will be just an early stage in a longer process
of discussion involving the PCC SCT, the PCC Policy Committee, and people and
units outside of the PCC.
During the course of our developing our ideas, we communicated with the PCC
SCT Task Group on NACO Continuing Education, reading each other's interim reports,
our group's functional evaluation, and the NACO Continuing Education group's
Web page discussion. We also exchanged ideas about possible plans for developing
the NACO Participants' Manual and directions that its delivery might take.
In general, we were encouraged to confirm that we were thinking along similar
lines: both groups support the goal of providing multiple means of access to
the same information through different documentation delivery methods, while
both groups, in effect, are recommending that the responsibility for the preparation
and maintenance of documentation be distributed as widely as is practical.
We also corresponded with the PCC SCT Task Group on Web-Based Training and
Distance Education regarding copyright issues and read their interim report.
The copyright information that we collected specifically about PCC documentation
complements their more broadly based approach.
One of our conclusions has been that for any model to work successfully in
practice, the genuine, ongoing institutional commitment of PCC members will
be crucial -- in providing valuable staff time as well as other financial resources
(e.g., paying for any local printing) -- in combination with hard work from
dedicated individuals who often already shoulder numerous other responsibilities.
There are no easy solutions, although we hope that our proposals, as mediated
through the work of a PCC SCT Subcommittee on Participant Documentation, could
provide for reasonably fair ones. We look forward to further discussion of
the ideas presented and the issues raised in this report.
PCC SCT Task Group on PCC Participant and Training Documentation:
- Rebecca R. Malek-Wiley, Tulane University (Co-chair)
- Betsy Simpson, University of Florida (Co-chair)
- Louisa Kreider, Cleveland Public Library
- Lois Sewell, Indiana University
- Carolyn Sturtevant, Library of Congress Cooperative Cataloging Team
- James Weinheimer, Princeton University
|
The
Library of Congress
>> Cataloging 
Top
of Page