• 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文学位 >An evaluation of Program for Cooperative Cataloging (PCC) records used in non-PCC libraries.
【24h】

An evaluation of Program for Cooperative Cataloging (PCC) records used in non-PCC libraries.

机译：对非PCC库中使用的合作编目计划（PCC）记录的评估。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

The Program for Cooperative Cataloging (PCC), created in 1992 under the auspices of the Library of Congress (LC), provides bibliographic and authority records intended to meet the cataloging needs of all libraries. The number of institutions participating in the BIBCO or Bibliographic Cooperative component of the PCC remains limited to 46 institutions. The PCC introduced a bibliographic record standard, the core level record, which emphasized a dependable description with full authority control, while providing timely access.; Timesavings and efficiency have been results observed for PCC libraries creating core level records. The PCC libraries are thus able to devote more resources to cataloging difficult foreign language or esoteric material often needed by library users but previously unavailable and unknown because it was in the cataloging arrearage or backlog. However, no studies examined whether non-PCC libraries accepted PCC records as readily as they accepted LC cataloging records in the OCLC Online Computer Library Center (OCLC) database. This study analyzed the acceptability of PCC records by examining how 72 various academic, public, and special libraries edited them during a two-month study period.; Findings pointed to the participants' inability to identify PCC records correctly. There was also some indication that editing of notes and non-access point fields in bibliographic records continue to be a priority for some institutions. The most frequent significant change to the PCC records was the addition of Dewey Decimal classification (DDC) numbers by public library participants and the addition of LC classification numbers for academic and special library participants. This modification was observed as the main difference between LC and PCC records.; Overall, 65.3% of PCC records were used with no editing changes and 97.4% of MARC fields examined were not edited. Results revealed a correlation between the absence of a needed classification number and personnel level handling copy cataloging. An analysis of editing changes in full versus core PCC records was presented. Recommendations for library administrators, cataloging managers, OCLC, and the PCC Policy Operations Committee concerning authority verification, classification number verification, PCC record identification and cataloging record source field, and monitoring copy cataloging work to promote efficiency were provided.
机译：1992年在国会图书馆（LC）的主持下创建的合作编目计划（PCC）提供书目和权威记录，旨在满足所有图书馆的编目需求。参与PCC的BIBCO或书目合作组织的机构数量仍限于46个。 PCC引入了书目记录标准，即核心层记录，该记录标准强调了具有完整权限控制的可靠描述，同时提供了及时的访问权限。已观察到PCC库创建核心级记录的时间和效率节省。因此，PCC图书馆可以投入更多资源来对困难的外语或深奥的资料进行编目，这通常是图书馆用户所需要的，但由于其存在于编目欠款或待办事项中，因此以前不可用且未知。但是，没有研究检查非PCC图书馆是否接受OCLC在线计算机图书馆中心（OCLC）数据库中的LC编目记录就像接受PCC记录一样容易。这项研究通过检查72个学术，公共和特殊图书馆在两个月的研究期内如何编辑PCC记录来分析其可接受性。调查结果表明参与者无法正确识别PCC记录。还有迹象表明，对书目记录中的注释和非接入点字段进行编辑仍然是某些机构的优先事项。对PCC记录的最频繁的重大更改是，公共图书馆参与者增加了杜威十进制分类（DDC）编号，并且为学术图书馆和特殊图书馆参与者增加了LC分类编号。观察到这种修改是LC和PCC记录之间的主要区别。总体而言，使用了65.3％的PCC记录而没有编辑更改，而97.4％的MARC字段未编辑。结果表明，缺少所需的分类编号与人员级别处理副本编目之间存在关联。进行了对完整PCC记录与核心PCC记录的编辑更改的分析。向图书馆管理员，编目经理，OCLC和PCC政策运营委员会提供了有关权限验证，分类编号验证，PCC记录标识和编目记录源字段以及监视副本编目工作以提高效率的建议。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号