Helen,
Disclaimer: although I am on record as having objected to the MARBI
proposal, I am trying to avoid letter that influence the content of this
message.
PCC, for its own internal needs, wants to make it possible for BIBCO and
CONSER members to implement the 490/830 part of the MARBI proposal. But
in so doing, they've only dealt with half of the proposal - and even
that is not mandatory with immediate effect.
But Thomas is quite right. The "normal" course of events in the most
general of terms for an "approved" proposal is:
1. MARC Advisory Council approves something
2. The national libraries review and approve it
3. The change is published
4. After a 60-day waiting period the new/revised coding (or whatever)
can start to be used in records
Right now, this proposal has progressed only through steps 1 and 2. We
can expect the changes to be reflected in Update 9 to the MARC 21 Bib
format - this is likely to have a cover date of October 2008, I suspect,
but even if it does that doesn't mean it will appear in October 2008!
The next release of Cataloger's Desktop - which many use as their
immediate MARC documentation source - isn't due for 3 months. Even if
the MARC update appears during that time there's no guarantee it will be
ready in time for incorporation into the Feb 2009 issue of Desktop.
In addition to those general steps, there are other considerations,
including (but not exhaustively)
1. How does the change fit with our local ILS? Do we need to make
changes there (to, e.g., indexing, validation)?
2. What plans do the cooperatives/utilities with which we have a
relationship have for implementation, and how do they affect us?
3. What do we need to do or think about doing regarding existing data?
(In the above, the "we" may be your own institution, an organisation of
which you're a member, a Union Catalogue to which you belong, etc etc.)
Right now I would agree with Thomas. It's too early in the process to be
doing more than you're already doing - i.e. thinking about the issues,
talking to other people. Don't allow yourself to be swayed by the PCC
decision in respect of its own programs (unless you have an
institutional policy to follow BIBCO/CONSER practice even though you're
not members).
I hope this helps. It's basically a more verbose version of the reply
Thomas gave!
Hugh
--
Hugh Taylor
Head, Collection Development and Description
Cambridge University Library
West Road, Cambridge CB3 9DR, England
email: [log in to unmask] fax: +44 (0)1223 333160
phone: +44 (0)1223 333069 (with voicemail) or
phone: +44 (0)1223 333000 (ask for pager 036)
Thomas Meehan said - in whole or part - on 29/10/2008 16:09:
> Helen,
>
> We are not implementing this at the moment. We are not a PCC member so I
> don't feel bound to make this a priority at the moment. The option to
> keep legacy data in 440s is useful in this respect. We fully intend to
> abandon the 440 at some stage, and I don't want to leave it too long,
> but I think there are two conditions I would like to fulfil first:
> 1. I want to be happy that there are no hidden problems, especially with
> the library management system, and especially with authority control. I
> don't think there will be, but I think it wise to make sure.
> 2. The online MARC manual has to be updated.
> In the meantime, I don't see a particular need to rush except for our
> obligations to consortia to whom we give our records, who deserve
> records done according to the current standards as far as possible.
>
> I would be interested to hear what others are doing.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Thomas Meehan
>
> Helen Williams wrote:
>> I wondered if others on the list had seen the PCC guidelines for
>> implementing the recent decision to make the 440 field obsolete.
>> http://www.loc.gov/catdir/pcc/Field440.pdf
>>
>> I would be interested to know what others are doing in terms of
>> implementing this at their institutions.
>
>
|