CEC Theses and Dissertations

Title

An Evaluation of Program for Cooperative Cataloging(PCC) Records Used in Non-PCC Libraries

Date of Award

2005

Document Type

Dissertation

Degree Name

Doctor of Philosophy (PhD)

Department

Graduate School of Computer and Information Sciences

Advisor

Steven D. Zink

Committee Member

Getrude W. Abramson

Committee Member

Sylvia D. Hall-Ellis

Abstract

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.

Time savings 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.

This document is currently not available here.

  Link to NovaCat

Share

COinS