So your argument is that every single possible field must be created to
be the briefest informative record possible? Really?
Regardless, that's an argument to take up with bibco/PCC I guess.
Apparently they decided that not every single possible field was
neccesary for a BIBCO Standard Record, and that the fields you are
missing were not neccesary. You could take it up with them to argue
that either every single possible field should be mandated filled out
for a BIBCO Standard Record, or even if not every single field, then
some of the fields they have not mandated for BIBCO Standard Record
ought to have been mandated. (That would presumably require more of a
supporting argument for why those fields in particular ought to be
mandated then "not to include any possible field is a disservice to our
patrons." Although I guess that would be the former argument, that a
BIBCO Standard Record ought to mandate that every possibly applicable
MARC field be filled out if applicable. They clearly chose another path. )
On 4/25/2011 6:37 PM, Gene Fieg wrote:
Thanks for the documents on bibco records.
Not to include certain fields, whether variable or fixed, does a
disservice to the patron who might be looking for specific types of
information in those books. Our goal should not only create the
briefest record possible, but the briefest informative record
possible. Not including bibl. references does not fulfill that criterion.
On Mon, Apr 25, 2011 at 1:37 PM, Adam L. Schiff
<asch...@u.washington.edu <mailto:asch...@u.washington.edu>> wrote:
This record is coded as a BIBCO record.
The BIBCO Standard Record does not require the bibliographical
references and indexes note(s) nor most fixed fields to be filled
in. The particular fields that Mr. Fieg criticizes as lacking are
not required for PCC records.
Please see the BIBCO Standard Record documentation at
http://www.loc.gov/catdir/pcc/bibco/BSR-MAPS.html The textual
monographs metadata application profile is at
http://www.loc.gov/catdir/pcc/bibco/BSR_TM_3Sept-2010.pdf
Mr. Fieg's criticism of this record has nothing whatsoever to do
with deficiencies of RDA or even with cataloger error, since this
record fulfills the BIBCO Standard Record floor requirements. One
may argue the merits and defaults of the specific requirements of
the standard, but those arguments were already held within the
PCC, and that is really for a completely different list than this
one. Suffice it to say that the fields missing or uncoded that
Mr. Fieg complains about were not deemed essential elements needed
to support user tasks to find, identify, select, and obtain. See
the Final Report of the Task Group on BIBCO Standard Record
Requirements at
http://www.loc.gov/catdir/pcc/bibco/BSR-Final-Report.pdf
Adam Schiff
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Adam L. Schiff
Principal Cataloger
University of Washington Libraries
Box 352900
Seattle, WA 98195-2900
(206) 543-8409
(206) 685-8782 fax
asch...@u.washington.edu <mailto:asch...@u.washington.edu>
http://faculty.washington.edu/~aschiff
<http://faculty.washington.edu/%7Easchiff>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
On Mon, 25 Apr 2011, Gene Fieg wrote:
OCLC record: *690085810: Fixed field for index should be
marked as "1".
It also should have 504 stating that it contains
bibliographical references and index.
I guess we are too busy adding fields 336-338 and forgetting
what may be truly useful to the patron.
--
Gene Fieg
Cataloger/Serials Librarian
Claremont School of Theology
gf...@cst.edu <mailto:gf...@cst.edu>
--
Gene Fieg
Cataloger/Serials Librarian
Claremont School of Theology
gf...@cst.edu <mailto:gf...@cst.edu>
