<html>
<body>
<font size=3>Dear NACO catalogers,<br><br>
You might remember that the NACO Coordinating Committee sent out a
document last month containing draft guidelines for "Yale policies
for NACO independence." We are now sending out a second draft, which
incorporates revisions made in response to feedback we received:
<a href="http://www.library.yale.edu/cataloging/authorities/independence_policy.htm" eudora="autourl">
http://www.library.yale.edu/cataloging/authorities/independence_policy.htm</a>
<br><br>
The changes made to the last draft are listed below. Major changes
include: a maximum acceptable response time for reviewing records (we
have proposed that reviewers must respond within 2 weeks) and a change to
the quantitative standards section to stipulate that the 90% acceptable
rate applies to a consecutive sequence of records not all the records the
person has ever submitted (this is what we had intended to say to begin
with but we were not so good at expressing it!).<br><br>
I hope everyone understands that these guidelines are not an attempt to
make it more difficult for NACO catalogers to become independent. At
heart, they are an attempt to make the review process more consistent (so
that some people don't get an "easy" reviewer and some a
"hard" reviewer, etc., leading to charges of unfair treatment)
and an attempt to make sure that all heading types are being evaluated.
Writing them forced us to think hard about what an "acceptable"
record is and what kinds of quantitative and qualitative standards come
into play when determining whether or not someone is ready to create
records without review. As part of our research, we did a survey on the
PCC discussion list to see what other libraries are doing; we were quite
surprised to find out that many libraries do not allow anyone to become
independent for NACO work (not a model we wanted to follow!). <br><br>
Because we have proposed a minimum record number for each heading type,
the total number of records needed to be fully independent is more than
was specified in the Yale guidelines approved in 1996 (these guidelines
specified "at least 50" records though it was very much at the
discretion of the individual reviewer). On the other hand, we have
dropped the accuracy rate from 95% to 90%.<br><br>
Many thanks for the responses sent on the first draft; please feel free
to offer comments on this revised draft as well, whether publicly or
privately.<br><br>
-Manon<br><br>
<br>
<b>====================================<br><br>
General Comments:<br>
</b>-- added 3rd sentence in 1st paragraph<br>
NEW: "If the overall quality of our records were to become
unacceptable, our institutional independence could be revoked by the
Library of Congress."<br><br>
-- added new sentence in 2nd paragraph:<br>
NEW: "The guidelines are intended to ensure that each cataloger is
reviewed in a consistent and fair manner."<br><br>
-- deleted final sentence: <br>
OLD: "The guidelines below will not be applied retrospectively;
catalogers granted independence in the past will not be asked to achieve
independence a second time."<br>
(note: still holds true we just don't need to say it in the
policy)<br><br>
<b>Review Process<br>
</b>-- added new first paragraph:<br>
NEW: "Reviewees may send no more than 10 records at a time (fewer
than 10 is fine) and must wait until their reviewer has responded before
sending another batch. Each batch may include a mix of heading
types." <br><br>
-- added new 2nd paragaraph: <br>
NEW: "Reviewers must return the records to the reviewee within 2
weeks of receipt. If the batch contains a heading that is particularly
problematic (and the reviewer has had to ask the NACO Coordinator to
forward a query to LC), then the reviewer should return the batch minus
the problematic heading and inform the reviewee that he or she may send
another batch while the reviewer is waiting for the response from LC.
Reviewers taking significant vacation or other approved release time
should inform their reviewees and make interim arrangements as needed
(e.g., asking reviewees to hold their headings or submit them to a
designated temporary reviewer)."<br><br>
-- deleted "learning phase" sentence <br>
(see new paragraph in "Quantitative Standards"
section)<br><br>
<b>Quantitative Standards:<br>
</b>-- revised 2nd paragraph entirely<br>
OLD: "However, the number of unacceptable records should constitute
no more than 10% of the total records submitted for that heading type.
Thus, if a high number of unacceptable records have been submitted, it
will take more than the minimum number of acceptable records to achieve
independence."<br>
NEW: "For each record type, the minimum number of acceptable records
must be submitted consecutively and the number of unacceptable records
within the sequence should constitute no more than 10%. For example, if a
cataloger has submitted 60 personal name records in the last couple of
months and 50 of the 60 records are of acceptable quality, the cataloger
may be granted independence."<br><br>
-- added new final paragraph:<br>
NEW: "This system allows the reviewee to make mistakes during the
initial "learning phase" without being penalized. Example: if a
cataloger submits 20 unacceptable series records in her first two
batches, learns from her mistakes, and then submits 25 acceptable series
records, the first 20 records may be ignored and she may be granted
independence."<br><br>
<b>Qualitative Standards<br>
</b>-- added new final paragraph:<br>
NEW: "If the reviewee regularly reports duplicate authority records
encountered in the LC/NAF, or discovers errors in existing authority
records, the reviewer should interpret this as additional evidence that
the cataloger is developing the qualitative expertise needed to function
as an independent NACO contributor."<br><br>
<b>Major vs. Minor Errors:<br>
</b>-- revised 4XX in table:<br>
OLD: "reference added but not needed"<br>
NEW: "reference added but prohibited by rules"<br><br>
-- revised 5XX in table:<br>
OLD: "reference added but not needed"<br>
NEW: "reference added but prohibited by rules"<br><br>
--added new major errors under 781 in table (in case someone adds the
field in a new NAR; we had only accounted for updates):<br>
NEW:<br>
Major: incorrect choice or form of subdivision<br>
Major: incorrect indicator or subfield <br>
Major: incorrect spacing, capitalization, or punctuation<br>
Major: typo<br>
<x-sigsep><p></x-sigsep>
____________________________________________<br><br>
Manon Théroux<br>
Authority Control Librarian<br>
Catalog Department<br>
Yale University Library <br>
P.O. Box 208240<br>
New Haven, CT 06520-8240
<br><br>
203-432-8376 (tel)<br>
203-432-7231 (fax)<br>
manon.theroux@yale.edu</font></body>
</html>