John Byrum reviewed the 20 years of NACO, from GPO contributing government body names in 1977 to the current international situation with upwards of 200 contributing institutions.
Brian Schottlaender described the consolidation of PCC and CONSER. The combined Policy Committee will have members from LC, British Library, NLC, OCLC, and RLG, as well as eight representatives (3 BIBCO, 3 CONSER, 2 NACO). A BIBCO Operations Committee will be established with 10 representatives (and OCLC and RLG reps).
LC did some studying of record usage and found that they used about 40% of BIBCO records and about 50% of contributed authority records.
The reports were followed by a panel discussion of core records. Willy Cromwell-Kessler (RLG) moderated and asked a series of questions. The panelists were Karen Calhoun (Cornell), Jain Fletcher (UCLA), Margaret Shen (Cleveland Public), Joan Swanekamp (Yale, ex-Columbia), and Beacher Wiggins (LC).
Question 1: how are you applying core records? UCLA is doing about 10% in core and the comfort level is rising. CPL has two trainers and they are no longer reviewing new core records. LC will adopt core in phases, by team, division, subject area, etc. It is expected to be the standard LC record by the time of adoption of the new system in 1999 or 2000. Columbia got the official buy-in from all units, but added several fields to standard (e.g. 502, 533, exhibition notes). Cornell is in its 5th month of using core and they are in the majority of new records; catalogers determine level.
Question 2: how do you treat core as copy? CPL checks for 042 and classification, treats as copy. UCLA original catalogers have been reviewing core records but most have gone back to Rapid Cat; they will stop the reviewing. Cornell also started out reviewing but is moving to Rapid Cat for core copy. LC will be developing guidelines.
Question 3: how does cataloger determine level? Cornell catalogers are instructed to see core as the default. If cataloger judges book is especially relevant to collection or library goals, full level should be done. Others replied ditto.
Question 4: any cataloger observations? UCLA catalogers at first thought they could do full almost as fast as core and tried to beat the clock; they have moved toward efficiency and are generally pleased with the quality of core records. CPL catalogers see core as efficient and productive. LC catalogers express widely divergent views: the Slavic catalogers love it; Hispanic catalogers like it and are not adding access points saving considerable authority work. The new workstations are also increasing productivity and satisfaction. Columbia catalogers have significantly mixed reactions: subject analysis a problem and greatly increased number of authority records. Cornell catalogers are still watching: statistics have not declined as expected; 504s may be added as determined helpful. They are trying to reflect on a "dependable and useful" record rather than necessarily a perfect one. They are reviewing records on rotation.
Question 5: how has public services staff been involved? UCLA has involved selectors. CPL public service helped select fields to be included in core records; they also submit clippings, etc. to add to authority records. Columbia met with all public service units; some were reluctant but science librarians saw no problem. Cornell held a public meeting to discuss the reactions to core records.
Question 6: any user reactions and use of records? CPL user reactions have been more to the proliferation of helpful authority work than to existence of notes, etc. Columbia discovered that lots of core records in OCLC were being used but did not do research in RLIN. Cornell reported no reactions but have discussed with library instruction staff what their expectations of record content should be.
A discussion on AUTOCAT had stated that there was a ceiling or floor on the number of subject headings. The general consensus was that the number in the standard was a guideline to judgment, not a ceiling or floor. OCLC has not determined how they will do overlaying and enhancing of records.