Cataloging and Classification Quarterly, 2010, Vol.48, No.2-3, p. 221-236. 

ISSN: 0163-9374 (print) 1544-4554 (online) 

doi: 10.1080/01639370903535726 

http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/copyright.asp 

http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/titles/01639374.asp 

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/01639370903535726 

© 2010 Taylor & Francis Group 

 

Program f or Cooperative Cataloging: BIBCO Records: Analysis of 
Quality 
 

MAGDA EL-SHERBINI 
The Ohio State University 

 
ABSTRACT 

The Program for Cooperative Cataloging (PCC) is an international program that brings together 

libraries that wish to participate in the creation and sharing of bibliographic records. These high quality 

records can be used by any library around the world without additional modification or change. Members 

of the cooperative adhere to a set of standards and practices that help eliminate extensive editing of 

records by participant libraries, thus allowing libraries to reduce the cost of cataloging. Even though the 

records submitted to the Online Computer Library Center (OCLC) database by PCC member institutions 

adhere to the established standards, some libraries continue to verify the quality of the access points in 

these records. Many libraries outsource this process to outside vendors who automatically check these 

records against the Library of Congress (LC) Authority File. The purpose of this study is to examine the 

quality of the PCC records in light of the changes that were made by an authority control vendor. The 

author will analyze the changes made by the vendor to the PCC records and explain the reasons for those 

changes. 

  

INTRODUCTION 
 

The Library of Congress (LC) Program for Cooperative Cataloging (PCC) was 

established to improve the timely availability of bibliographic and authority records by 

cataloging more items, producing cataloging that is widely available for sharing and use by 

others, and performing cataloging in a more cost-effective manner.
1 

PCC provides training to 

members of the cooperative who adhere to a set of standards and practices that help eliminate 

extensive editing of records by participant libraries, thus allowing libraries to reduce the cost of 

cataloging. Even though the records submitted to the Online Computer Library Center (OCLC) 

database by PCC member institutions adhere to the established standards, some libraries 

continue to verify the quality of the access points in these records. Many other libraries 

outsource this process to outside vendors who automatically check these records against the 

Library of Congress Authority File. The purpose of this study is to examine the quality of the 

PCC records in light of the changes that were made by an authority control vendor. The author 

will analyze the changes made by the vendor to the PCC records and explain the reasons for 

those changes. 

 

BACKGROUND 
 



PCC is made up of four components: NACO (Name Authority Cooperative Program), 

SACO (Subject Authority Cooperative Program), BIBCO (Monographic Bibliographic Record 

Cooperative Program), and CONSER (Cooperative Online Serials Program). Through these 

four programs, member institutions contribute bibliographic records that follow mutually 

accepted cataloging standards. Before joining each program, potential member institutions 

participate in PCC training in order to assure consistency and accuracy of bibliographic records 

that will be produced by them. 

The Monographic Bibliographic Record Cooperative Program (BIBCO) is an important 

component of PCC. BIBCO members have the responsibility for contributing full or core level 

bibliographic records to the program. As part of this process, members have to provide 

"complete authority work (both descriptive and subject), a national level call number (such as 

LC classification or NLM classification), and at least one subject access point drawn from 

nationally recognized thesauri such as LCSH, MeSH, etc., as appropriate."
2
 

Records submitted to the OCLC database by BIBCO contributors follow established 

rules and standards for authority work. These records are downloaded into local systems and 

many libraries submit these records to an authority control vendor to check them against the 

Library of Congress Authority File. Libraries use a vendor service instead of having their own 

copy catalogers check each individual record. 

Libraries prepare a specific profile that is used by the vendor to check these records 

against the LC Authority File. The profile provides instruction to the vendor on what changes 

need to be made. Currently, The Ohio State University Library (OSUL) is using Backstage 

Library Works (BSLW) as their authority control vendor.
3
 BSLW provides name and subject 

authority control services based on the LC name and subject authority databases. The catalogers 

at OSUL do not check access points when they download records. However, they check the 

authority file when they are creating new records in the OCLC database. The OSUL policy is to 

depend on a commercial vendor to perform automated post-cataloging authority control without 

human intervention. This simplifies and accelerates the process of copy cataloging.  

At the end of every month, the Cataloging Department produces a file of all records 

created by cataloging staff (original cataloging) and by other library units (copy cataloging). 

This file of records is then sent to BSLW for automated authority control processing according 

to a specific profile (e.g., check all access points, punctuation, tags, indicators, and spelling). 

After BSLW checks the bibliographic records against the LC Authority File, they correct the 

records automatically and provide OSUL with reports on unmatched headings, unrecognized 

subfields, and possible invalid tags. 

 

LITERATURE REVIEW 
 

PCC initiatives have been well documented in the library literature.
4
 The program Web 

site is an official source of information on PCC and its components (NACO, BIBCO, SACO, 

and CONSER). It includes documentation, as well as statistical and contact information.
5
 

General information about the program can be found in "Becoming an Authority on Authority 

Control: An Annotated Bibliography of Resources."
6
 This bibliography includes monographs, 

articles and papers, electronic discussion groups, Web sites, training offered through NACO and 

SACO, and a summary of future trends in authority control. Riemer and Morgenroth discussed 

the increasing importance and the value of cooperative cataloging for librarians and library 

administrators. Their research focused on East Asian collections and PCC.
7
 Bowen also 



addressed the benefits and the cost effectiveness of the PCC core records by providing an 

explanation of the long-term value of the program.
8
 The PCC program now includes 

participation by non-U.S. institutions,
9
 either through an "individual membership" to PCC or as 

a group through a "funnel." 

Shrinking resources and budget reductions are among the major problems facing 

libraries today. Cataloging is among the most affected areas. Authority control in particular is 

often considered a labor intensive and expensive operation. In order to continue providing 

quality bibliographic records and to reduce the cost of processing, the PCC core record concept 

was introduced.
10

 The core record standard provides essential bibliographic elements based on 

acceptable standards that can be adapted without "modification" of the record at the local 

level.
11

 The core record concept was later expanded and adapted to include non-monographic 

materials. The Core Standard for Rare Books was adopted in 1999, but was met with some re-

sistance from the rare book cataloging community. An investigation of this response was 

researched and analyzed in "Evidence of Application of the DCRB Core Standard in WorldCat 

and RLIN."
12

 

Schuitema provided a lengthy introduction of the core bibliographic record and what it 

is, where the standard originates, and how the core level is different from the full level.
13

 She 

also addressed the issues that are associated with the implementation of the core record and 

examined some of the reasons libraries are implementing the core standards. Czeck, Icenhower, 

and Kellsey identified significant differences between records cataloged using OCLC core 

standards and PCC full standards, particularly in the occurrences of specific name and subject 

access points.
14

 This difference might have long term implications for user access and libraries 

should be alerted when they incorporate the core record in their copy cataloging procedures. 

NACO, which was founded in 1979, has grown and expanded through the years and 

now includes international membership. In his article on the subject, Byrum pointed out that 

"The NACO model has changed over time to create more cost-effective and user-friendly 

policies and procedures to meet participants' needs. Increased recognition, especially by library 

administrators, of the value of authority control also encouraged NACO to flourish" 

(Abstract).
15

 In his article, he explained membership requirements, benefits to the participants, 

as well as the role of the Library of Congress in providing training and documentation and 

participation in the program through a "Funnel." Libraries that cannot join the NACO program 

directly have been creating NACO funnels to enable them to contribute records indirectly 

through another institution. Some of the reasons a library may not join the cooperative are a 

lack of cataloging expertise and resources or inability to meet the NACO minimum submission 

requirements. Larmore provided a step-by-step explanation of how to set up a NACO funnel 

among four academic and one state library in South Dakota.
16

 As a result of changing the 

objectives of contributing records to the NACO program, the University of Florida Libraries 

increased productivity in this area.
17

 

Training catalogers on the NACO, BIBCO, SACO, and CONSER standards is essential 

to ensure the success of the program. Historical background on the PCC training and identifying 

the future needs in this area was discussed in "The Program for Cooperative Cataloging and 

Training for Catalogers."
18 

Calhoun and Boissonnas discussed the advantage of libraries joining 

PCC and cataloging according to BIBCO standards.
19

 In their discussion, they pointed out that 

PCC accomplishments included the establishment of shared standards for books, music, sound 

recordings, and audiovisual materials; simplifying and streamlining documentation; and 

implementing training programs. They pointed out that libraries should take advantage of the 

program and specifically emphasized the use of the core record concept that contains an 



accurate and standardized description and authorized access points. They also addressed the 

benefits of applying the core record in terms of cost effectiveness and enhanced user access. 

The benefits of participating in PCC are numerous and recognized in the library 

community. A practical approach to reduce the cost of the creation of authoritative 

bibliographic records is to create a record based on acceptable standards once and share it 

several times. In her editorial column, Carter said: "Cooperative cataloging is a subject near and 

dear to my heart and one in which I fervently believe. This includes being a contributor to the 

collective databases of cataloging and not just a taker. During my years in technical service at 

the University of Pittsburgh I had the privilege of participating in CONSER policy development 

and supported the library's entry into NACO and Enhance."
20

 

Quality of the cataloging record and the criteria that are used to determine it was 

discussed extensively by Bade in his article "The Perfect Bibliographic Record: Platonic Ideal, 

Rhetorical Strategy of Nonsense?"
21

 Bade dismissed the concept of the "perfect record" and 

recommended a more pragmatic approach to the problem that would concentrate on matching 

the individual needs of a particular library with the corresponding set of data elements in the 

bibliographic record that would satisfy that institution's needs. 

 

METHODOLOGY 
 

To examine the quality of the PCC records in light of the changes that were made by the 

BSLW and to explain the reasons for those changes, the following steps were taken. 

This author examined the file of records that were produced by OSUL catalogers in 

April 2009- This file was sent to BSLW for authority processing. The file consisted of 7,787 

records and included records that were either created in the OCLC database by OSUL staff or 

were downloaded from the OCLC database. 

Before sending this file to BSLW for post-authority control processing, the author used a 

Boolean search to separate the PCC records from non-PCC records. The "042" MARC 21 field 

was used to identify the PCC records. The result was a sample of 542 PCC records, about 7 

percent of records downloaded in April. A printout was made of the PCC records, which were 

assigned a unique ID. The sample was then sent separately to BSLW for authority processing. 

The author did not distinguish between the PCC records created by OSUL staff and those 

created by other PCC participant libraries. 

After the completion of authority processing, BSLW created several statistical reports 

that provided detail about the changes made to the PCC records. These reports were based on 

OSUL local requirements as outlined in the vendor profile. Before loading these records into the 

catalog, a copy of each record was made and given a unique ID. 

The next step was to examine how many PCC records the vendor had corrected and 

which fields were changed. Criteria used to compare the 

records before and after authority processing were based on access points and fields of 

importance to OSUL. Series information was excluded and will need to be addressed in a 

separate study. These criteria are as follows: 

Numbers and Codes 

Library of Congress Control Number (010 field) 

International Standard Book Number (020 field) 

Library of Congress Call Number (050 field) 

Local Call Numbers (090 field) Main Entries 



Main Entry—Personal Name (100 field) 

Main Entry—Corporate Name (110 field) 

Main Entry—Meeting Name (111 field) 

Main Entry—Uniform Title (130 field)  

Title and Title-Related Fields 

Title Statement (for obvious misspellings) (245 field $a) 

Varying Form of Title (for obvious misspellings) (246 field)  

Subject Access Fields 

Subject Added Entry—Personal Name (600 field) 

Subject Added Entry—Corporate Name (610 field) 

Subject Added Entry—Meeting Name (611 field) 

Subject Added Entry—Uniform Title (630 field) 

Subject Added Entry—Topical Term (650 field) 

Subject Added Entry—Geographic Name (651 field) 

Index Term—Genre/Form (second indicator 0) (655 field)  

Added Entries 

Added Entry—Personal Name (700 field) 

Added Entry—Corporate Name (710 field) 

Added Entry—Meeting Name (711 field) 

Added Entry—Uniform Title (730 field) 

 

Criteria were then created to group the changes according to their importance to retrieval of 

records from the OSUL online catalog. Records were separated into two categories: 

 

 Minor changes that do not affect the retrieval of records—punctuation, diacritics, 
and spaces. 

 Major changes that impact the retrieval of records—incorrect indicators, 
incorrect or lack of subfield delimiters, incorrect tags, incorrect headings, and 

incorrect form of heading. 

 

For the purpose of this study, statistical analysis takes into consideration the number of 

occurrences of errors, and not the number of records affected by the errors. Hence, there could 

be more errors in a certain area than there are records in the sample. 
 

                                 TABLE 1 Changes in Numbers and Codes Fields 

 

Numbers and Codes Fields Bibs with 

This Field 

PCC Bibs 

Changed 

Percent 

Changed 

LC Control Number (010) 273 272 99.6 

ISBN (020) 1089 0 0 

LC Call Number (050) 546 6 1.1 

Locally Assigned LC-Type 123 0 0 

Call Number (090)    

Total Numbers and Codes 2332 280 12 

Fields    

 

 

 

 



The printouts of records that were made before authority processing were compared to 

records returned from the vendor. All the changes that were made by the vendor were recorded 

on the printout. To avoid searching the Authority File (AF) for all the access points to determine 

if they had already been established, the author used the report that was generated by BSLW. 

This report showed the headings that did not match or were not yet established in the AF. These 

headings were then searched manually in the AF to determine the reasons for the lack of 

headings match. It was assumed that the original cataloger checked the AF to verify or establish 

headings before creating the records in OCLC, as this is required by the PCC BIBCO standards. 

 

RESULTS 
 

Changes in Numbers and Codes Fields (010, 020, 050, and 090) 

 

Table 1 represents the most frequent changes that occurred in the LC Control Number 

(field 010) and the LC Call Number (field 050). Nearly all of the 010 fields were changed by the 

vendor to add a space between the subfield delimiter ($a) and the LC Control Number, 

according to the OCLC Bibliographic Formats and Standards.
22

 In the 050 field, six errors were 

changed to correct spaces. It should be noted that there were 129 records with the 090 field 

(locally assigned LC-type call number). OSUL staff assigned local call numbers in the 090 field 

to adjust the Cutter number in certain classes (e.g., M, N, and P). However, the call numbers in 

the existing 050 fields were left untouched. There was no change in the International Standard 

Book Number (ISBN) (020 field). The changes in the Numbers and Codes fields were minor, 

because they did not affect the retrieval of records from the OSUL online catalog. 

 

Changes in Main Entries (100, 110, 111, and 130 fields) 

 

Table 2 shows the changes in the Main Entry that occurred during the authority control 

processing. The following is analysis of the changes in each Main Entry field: 

 

 
TABLE 2 Changes in Main Entry Fields (100, 110, 111, and 130 Fields) 

 

Main Entry Fields 

Number of 

Records that have 

This Field Total Match 

Total of Headings 

Changed/Non 

Match 

Percent of 

Changes and Non 

Match 

Personal Name Main Entry 

   (100) 
359 167 192 53 

Corporate Name Main Entry 

   (110) 
14 8 6 75 

Meeting Name Main Entry 

   (111) 
7 5 2 29 

Uniform titles (130) 1 0 1 100 

Total Main Entry Fields 381 180 201 54 

 

 

 

 

 



CHANGES IN THE PERSONAL NAME MAIN ENTRY (100 FIELD) 

 

About 53 percent (192 errors) of the Personal Name Main Entry (100 field) changed 

during authority processing. These changes can be grouped into two categories: minor changes 

noted in punctuation (153 errors), adding diacritics (18 errors), and deleting spaces (11 errors). 

Major changes occurred in indicators (2 errors), correcting tags (1 error), correcting subfields 

and subfield delimiters (3 errors). The largest number of changes was in punctuation (nearly 82 

percent), where adding and deleting a period at the end of the heading was an issue. It should be 

noted that all of these changes were performed automatically by comparing the headings in the 

bibliographic records to the heading in the AF. Although there were small number of changes in 

tags, indicators, and subfields and subfield delimiters, these changes were important for the 

proper indexing and retrieval of the record. 

The vendor reported that there were four headings that did not match the heading in the 

AF. Upon examination, it was determined that of the Personal Name Main Entries (100 field) 

that did not match, two were already found in the AF. These two records were created and 

added to the AF after the bibliographic records were input into OCLC. When the OSUL records 

were sent to the vendor for post-cataloging authority processing, these non-match headings 

were not in the AF. The other two names had not been established in the AF. 

 

CHANGES IN THE CORPORATE NAME MAIN ENTRY (110 FIELD) 

 

There were only fourteen fields in the sample set of records containing a 110 field. The 

vendor updated six fields to correct spaces (1 error) and punctuation (5 errors). Again, these 

changes were considered to be minor and do not effect the retrieval of the records. 

 

 
       TABLE 3 Changes in Title Information Fields (245, 246, and 240 Fields) 

 

Title Information Field 

Number of 

Records that 

have This 

Field Total Match 

Total of 

Headings 

Changed/Non 

Match 

Percent of 

Non Match 

Title (245) 542 476 66 12.2 

Other Title Information (246) 125 125 0 0 

Total Title Information Fields  667 601 66 10 

 

 

 

 

CHANGES IN THE MEETING NAME MAIN ENTRY (111 FIELD) 

 

There were seven fields in the sample records for the Meeting Name Main Entry (111 

field) and two errors were changed to correct punctuation. 

 

CHANGES IN THE UNIFORM TITLES (130 FIELDS) 

 

There was one Uniform Title main entry (130 field) in the sample that was reported by 

the vendor as a non-match. An examination of this heading revealed that it was not established 

in the AF. 



 

Changes in Title and Title-Related Fields (245, 246, Fields) 

 

In examining the Title Fields (245 field) it was determined that 66 titles (12%) were 

changed (see Table 3). Of those, 48 errors (about 67 percent) were changed to correct spaces, 

six errors were corrected for misspelling, eight errors were corrected for non-filing indicators, 

and four errors were changed in the subfields and subneld delimiters. These changes in the title 

field were all done by the vendor through an automated process without human intervention. 

Searching these titles against the OCLC master records revealed that the records in OCLC 

remained incorrect. Although there were not many misspellings and non-filling indicators, these 

were important to correct because their accuracy has an impact on users' ability to search and 

retrieve records. There were no changes in the 246 field and all the title information in this field 

was correct. 

 

Changes in the Subject Access Fields (600, 610, 611, 630, 650, 651, 655) 

 

Table 4 shows the changes in the Subject Access that were made during the authority 

control processing. The following is analysis of the changes in each Subject Access field. 

 
 

     TABLE 4 Changes in Subject Access Fields (600, 610, 611, 650, 651, and 655 Fields) 

 

Subject Access Fields 

Number of 

Records that 

have This 

Field Total Match 

Total of 

Headings 

Changed/Non 

Match 

Percent of 

Non Match 

Personal Name Subject Heading 

(600) 
117 77 40 34 

Corporate Name Subject Headings 

(610) 
28 15 13 46 

Meeting Name Subject Headings 

(611) 
0 0 0 0 

Subject Heading Uniform Title (630) 15 9 6 40 

Topical Subject Headings (650) 1422 629 793 56 

Subject Headings Geographic (651) 128 65 63 49 

Genre Headings (655) 42 17 25 60 

Total Subject Access Fields 1752 802 940 54 

 

 

 

 

CHANGES IN THE PERSONAL NAME SUBJECT HEADING (600 FIELD) 

 

There were 117 Personal Name Subject Headings in the sample records and forty (34 

percent) were updated as a result of authority processing. Most of these changes were to correct 

punctuation (24 errors), subfield and subfield delimiters (1 error), indicators (1 error), and 

adding diacritics (12 errors). Although correcting punctuation and adding diacritics are 

considered minor changes, correcting indicators and subfields and subfield delimiters are 

important for proper indexing and retrieval of records. There were also two fields that were 

reported by the vendor as non-match. Both were searched in the AF and already established. 



They were reported as non-matches because they had a form as a subdivision; however, for the 

purposes of this study, they are not considered true errors. 

 

CHANGES IN THE CORPORATE NAME SUBJECT HEADINGS (610 FIELD) 

 

There were 28 fields that include the Corporate Name Subject Headings (610 field) in 

the sample records; thirteen fields (46%) were changed to correct punctuation (11 errors) and 

diacritics (2 errors). 

 

 

CHANGES IN THE SUBJECT HEADING UNIFORM TITLE (630 FIELD) 

 

In comparing this field before and after authority processing, six fields out of fifteen (40 

percent) were reported by the vendor as non-matching. Upon examination, it was determined 

that these six headings were in the same bibliographic record (OCLC # 318988782). They were 

actually two different headings with multiple form subdivisions; again, these are not considered 

errors. 

 

CHANGES IN THE TOPICAL SUBJECT HEADINGS (650 FIELD) 

 

There were numerous changes in the 650 Topical Subject Heading field, as 793 errors 

(56 percent) were corrected for spaces (255 errors), punctuation (447 errors), changes in 

subfields delimiters from "x" to "v" and vice versa (59 errors), changes in tags (14 errors) and 

indicators (11 errors). Changing subfield and subfield delimiters, tags, and indicators were 

important since they affect the meaning of the term and they have an impact on the users' ability 

to find the record. 

There were 7 fields that were reported by the vendor as non-match headings in the AF. 

Of these, 5 were major errors as defined by the parameters of this study, including two MARC 

tagging errors, and three errors in subject heading assignment. 

 

CHANGES IN THE SUBJECT HEADINGS GEOGRAPHIC (651 FIELD) 

 

There were 128 Geographic Subject Headings. Of this number, 63 fields were changed 

to correct punctuation (31 errors), spaces (27 errors), and subfield and subfield delimiters (7 

errors). 

 

CHANGES IN THE GENRE HEADINGS (655) 

 

There were 25 errors that were changed. In most cases, the indicators were changed 

from "7" to "0" in 14 fields. Eleven headings (two of them were repeated three times) were 

reported as non-match by the vendor. In checking these headings in the AF, it was discovered 

that they had already been established, but two of them had typos and were not corrected by the 

cataloger locally or in the OCLC master record.
23

 

 

Changes in Added Entries Fields (700, 710, 711, and 730) 

 

Table 5 provides information on changes in Added Entries. The following is an analysis 



of the changes in each Added Entry field. 

 

CHANGES IN THE PERSONAL NAME ADDED ENTRY (700 FIELD) 

 

Out of 400 Personal Name Added Entry fields included in the sample records, 182 fields (46%) 

were changed by the vendor. Most changes in this field occurred in punctuation (78 errors), 

adding diacritics (29 errors), deleting spaces (63 errors), correcting indicators (5 errors), and 

correcting subfield delimiters (4 errors). The vendor reported that there were 3 headings that 

were not matched in the AF. After searching these headings in, it was determined that one 

already existed in the AF, one was not found, and the third was ambiguous. 

 
 

 

        TABLE 5 Changes in Added Entries Fields (700, 710, 711, and 730 Fields) 

 

Added Entries Fields 

Number 

of 

Records 

that have 

This Field 

Total 

Match  

Total of 

Headings 

Changed/

Non 

Match 

Percent of 

Non 

Match 

 

Personal Name Added Entry 

(700) 

400 218 182 46 

Corporate Name Added Entry 

(710) 
128 32 96 75 

Meeting Name Added Entry 

(711) 
1 1 0 0 

Added Entries Uniform Titles 

(730) 
4 0 4 100 

Total Added Entries Fields 533 251 282 53 

 

 

 

CHANGES IN THE CORPORATE NAME ADDED ENTRY (710 FIELD) 

 

There were 128 Corporate Name Added Entries in the sample records (710 field) and 

about three quarters of these fields changed. The major changes that occurred in this field were 

due to corrections in punctuation (65 errors), diacritics (22 errors), indicators (1 error), and 

subfield and subfield delimiters (2 errors). In this field, there were 6 headings that were reported 

by the vendor not to match the AF. In investigating these headings it was determined that only 

one heading was already added to the AF and one had not been established yet. The other 

headings were problems.
24

 

 

CHANGES IN THE MEETING NAME ADDED ENTRY (711 FIELD) 

 

There was only one Meeting Name Added Entry and it matched the AF. 

 

CHANGES IN THE ADDED ENTRIES UNIFORM TITLES (730 FIELDS) 

 

There were a total of four Uniform Title added entries in the sample records and the 

vendor reported all of them as non-match headings. An examination of these headings revealed 



that none of them had been established in the AF. These headings should have been established 

as part of the PCC standard requirement. 

 

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION 
 

A detailed examination of changes made by Backstage Library Works (BSLW) to the 

PCC records submitted at the end of April 2009 by the OSUL revealed certain patterns of errors 

and omissions. In measuring and assessing the quality of the PCC records in terms of the 

authority work and the accuracy of information, it was determined that the PCC records contain 

errors ranging from simple to serious. Some of these, such as adding or deleting spaces (355 

errors), adding or deleting diacritics (133 errors) or punctuation marks (1,098 errors) are merely 

cosmetic. These changes have little or no impact on the user's ability to search and find the 

record in the online catalog. Other changes, such as correcting tags (14 errors), correcting 

indicators (29 errors), correcting subfields and subfield delimiters (76 errors), and spelling (6 

errors), will affect the ability to search and retrieve these records. 

There were 381 fields among the sample records that contained Main Entries. Table 6 

shows the distribution of the 201 errors that were corrected during the authority processing 

(about 53 percent). Most errors (80 percent) corrected by the vendor occurred in the punctuation 

area, 9 percent diacritics, and 6 percent correcting spaces. A typical example involved adding or 

deleting a "." at the end of the field and deleting spaces. This type of error does not affect access 

to the record in the OSUL online catalog. 

There were relatively few errors in indicators, subfields, subfield codes, and tags. 

Although the number of errors in these areas was not significant, they need to be corrected 

because they will affect indexing and retrieval of records. Unfortunately these records will 

remain incorrect in the OCLC database, but will be corrected at those libraries that have post-

cataloging processing done by a vendor service. 

Five headings in the Main Entries areas were reported as "not found in the Authority 

File" by the vendor at the time of the authority control processing. Two of these headings were 

found during this study. This indicates a lack of synchronization between the time the 

bibliographic record is created and the time the authority record is added to the AF. The 

problem may also result from the BIBCO cataloger not being a member of NACO, and not 

being able to contribute to NACO. 

 
  

            TABLE 6 Distribution of Changes in Main Entries 

 

Type of Changes 

Number of the 

Changes Percent of Changes 

Punctuation 160 80 

Space 12 6 

Diacritics 18 9 

Subfield and subfield delimiters 3 1.5 

Indicators 2 1 

Tag 1 .5 

Non-matched headings 5 2.5 

Total changes 201 100 

 
 



             TABLE 7 Distribution of Changes in the Subject Areas 

 

Type of Changes 

Number of the 

Changes Percent of Changes 

Punctuation 515 55 

Space 280 30 

Diacritics 13 1.5 

Subfield and subfield delimiters 67 7 

Indicators 26 3 

Tag 13 1.4 

Non-matched headings 26 3 

Total changes 940 100 

 

 

 

There were a total of 1,742 subject fields among the sample records and about 54 

percent (940 errors) were changed. Table 7 shows that the largest percentage of changes 

occurred in punctuation (55 percent), followed by correcting spaces (30 percent), and adding 

diacritics (1 percent). The major problems in the subject area occurred in correcting subfields 

and subfield delimiters (7 percent) followed by changing indicators (3 percent), and correcting 

tags (1 percent). Although the number of major changes was relatively small, correcting these 

errors is important for proper indexing and accessing of the records in the OSUL online catalog. 

There were 26 headings (3 percent) reported as "non-matched" by the vendor, especially 

in Personal Name Subject Headings, Subject Headings Uniform Title, and the Genre Headings. 

Other problems that caused the headings to result in a non-match were due to mis-tagging, free-

floating subdivisions, form as a subdivision ($v), mis-constructing the subject heading, and not 

following the cross-references guide. In some cases the heading was not established in the 

Authority File at the time of authority control process. These problems require skilled catalogers 

to investigate them and correct them manually. According to the OSUL profile with the BSLW, 

the authority control vendor was only able to correct obvious errors that can be detected by the 

software. 

In the Added Entries fields, there were 282 errors that were changed by the vendor. 

Table 8 shows the distribution of these changes. Most errors occurred in punctuation (51 

percent), followed by correcting spaces (22 percent) and diacritics (18 percent). Changing 

indicators and adding subfields and subfield delimiters represent only two percent. The percent-

age of non-matched headings was very small. Only four percent were not in the AF at the time 

of authority control processing. 

Although the number of fields corrected by the BSLW in the sample record was 

substantial, this study reveals that majority of these would not affect indexing or retrieval of 

these records from the OSUL online catalog. These include punctuation, diacritics and spaces. 

These errors were corrected by the vendor for the client institution, but will not be corrected in 

the master record in OCLC. This type of error is not significant enough to be corrected in-

house, if the vendor service was not used. 

 

 
 

 

 

 

 



 

             TABLE 8 Distribution of Changes in Added Entries 

 

Type of Changes 

Number of the 

Changes Percent of Changes 

Punctuation 143 51 

Space 63 22 

Diacritics 51 18 

Subfield and subfield delimiters 6 2 

Indicators 6 2 

Tag 0  

Non-matched headings 13 4 

Total changes 282 100 

 

 

There is a smaller subset of errors that were corrected by BSLW that are more 

important, as they would have an impact on access and retrieval of records. These errors involve 

indicators, subfields and subfield delimiters, tags, spelling errors, and form of subject heading. 

Although there were a total number of 244 errors reported, this does not mean that so many 

records were affected. There were instances of multiple errors that were corrected in a single 

record, and the total number of records affected by this is substantially smaller than the 

statistical table indicates. 

In conclusion, the quality of the PCC-produced bibliographic records is high, as defined 

by the parameters of this study. The vast majority of the errors noted in the statistical tables 

were not substantial. The relatively small number of major errors occurred in the subfields and 

subfield delimiters, indicators, and tags. The vendor service used by the OSUL is good at 

identifying and correcting those records that contain major errors that have an impact on the 

accessibility of records in the online catalog. In the process, the vendor identifies and corrects 

other errors that have little or no bearing on the retrieval of records. Most of the errors in the 

sample records occurred at the time of original production of the catalog record. As PCC 

continues to develop and grow its cooperative cataloging program, it could consider offering 

continuing education or training of original catalogers involved in the program. 
 

NOTES 
1.  PCC Web site, http://www.loc.gov/catdir/pcc/ (accessed November 23, 2009). 

2.  BIBCO Web site, http://www.loc.gov/catdir/pcc/bibco/bibcopara.html (accessed November 23, 2009). 

3.  Backstage Library Works Web site. http://www.bslw.com/authority_control.htmKaccessed November 

23, 2009). 

4.  Carol Mandel, "Cooperative Cataloging: Models, Issues, Prospects," Advances in Librarianship 16 

(1992): 33-82. 

5.  PCC web site, http://www.loc.gov/catdir/pcc/ (accessed November 23, 2009). 

6.  Robert E. Wolverton, "Becoming an Authority on Authority Control: An Annotated Bibliography of 

Resources," Library Resources & Technical Services 50, no. 1 (2006): 31^1. 

7.  J. J. Riemer and K. Morgenroth, "Hang Together or Hang Separately: The Cooperative Authority Work 

Component of NACO," Cataloging & Classification Quarterly 17, no. 3-4 (1993): 127-161. 

8.  Jennifer B. Bowen, "Creating a Culture of Cooperation." Cataloging & Classification Quarterly 26, no. 

3 (December 31, 1998): 73-85. 

9.  Anthony R. D. Franks and Ana Cristan, "International Cooperation in the Program for Cooperative 

Cataloging: Present and Prospects." Cataloging & Classification Quarterly 30, no. 4 (2000): 37. 

10.  The PCC Core Records Web site, http://www.loc.gov/catdir/pcc/bibco/coreintro.html (accessed 

November 23, 2009). 



11.  S. E. Thomas, "The Core Bibliographic Record and the Program for Cooperative Cataloging," 

Cataloging & Classification Quarterly 21, no. 3-4 (1996): 91-108. 

12.  Winslow Lundy, "Use and Perception of the DCRB Core Standard." Library Resources & Technical 

Services 47, no. 1 (January 2003): 16-27. 

13.  Joan E. Schuitema, "Demystifying Core Records in Today's Changing Catalogs," Cataloging & 

Classification Quarterly 26, no. 3 (December 31, 1998): 57-71. 

14.  Rita L. H. Czeck. Elizabeth Icenhower, and Charlene Kellsey, "PCC Core Records Versus PCC Full 

Records: Differences in Access?" Cataloging & Classification Quarterly 29, no. 3 (2000): 81-92 

15.  John D. Byrum Jr., "NACO: A Cooperative Model for Building and Maintaining a Shared Name 

Authority Database," Cataloging & Classification Quarterly 38, no. 3-4 (2004): 237-249. 

16.  Dustin P. Larmore, "A New Kid on the Block: The Start of a NACO Funnel Project and What Is 

Needed to Start Your Own," Cataloging & Classification Quarterly 42, no. 2 (2006): 75-81. 

17.   Betsy Simpson, and Priscilla Williams, "Growing a NACO Program: Ingredients for Success." 

Cataloging & Classification Quarterly 40, no. 1 (2005): 123-132. 

18.  Carol G. Hixson and William A. Garrison, "The Program for Cooperative Cataloging and Training for 

Catalogers," Cataloging & Classification Quarterly 34, no. 3 (2002): 355. 

19.   Karen S. Calhoun, and Christian M. Boissonnas, "BIBCO: A Winning Proposition for Library Users 

and Staff," Library Acquisitions 22, no. 3 (1998): 251-255. 

20.   Ruth C. Carter, "Cooperative Cataloging." Cataloging & Classification Quarterly 30, no. 4 (2000): 1. 

21.  David Bade, "The Perfect Bibliographic Record: Platonic Ideal, Rhetorical Strategy or Nonsense," 

Cataloging & Classification Quarterly 46, no. 1 (2008): 109-133. 

22.  OCLC Bibliographic Formats and Standards-LC Control Number, http://www.oclc.org/ 

bibformats/en/Oxx/OlO.shtm 

23.  See "Christion fiction" in the OCLC record numbers 10385060 and "Science ficton" in the 6774710). 

24.   One record "Standard Publishing Company" has two possibilities, Standard Publishing Co. (Quincy, 

Mass) and Standard Publishing Company (Cincinnati, Ohio). Based on the OCLC record cited, the Cincinnati, 

Ohio entry is the correct one (OCLC record number (320363906). Another heading with a problem was the 

"American Academy of Pediatrics. $b Section on Home Care." "American Academy of Pediatrics" is in the AF, but 

$b "Section on Home Care" is not; however, there is $b "Section on Home Health Care" in the AF. It is possible 

that the word "Health" was accidentally omitted from the beading. The third heading that was a problem is 

"Universidad de los Andes (Bogota, Columbia). $b Facultad de Ciencas Sociates. $b Departamento de Languajes y 

Estudios Socioculturales." This heading was in the AF but the last $b "Departamento de Languajes y Estudios 

Socioculturales" was not (OCLC record number 220868279). The fourth heading, "Sbanxi Sheng (China). $b Guo 

tu zi yuan ting" had not been established in the AF. However, "Shaanxi Sheng (China)" was found in the AF while 

browsing. This heading needs more investigation by an expert cataloger to determine the correct form of the name 

(OCLC record number 60635282). 


	Program for Cooperative Cataloging: BIBCO Records: Analysis of Quality
	INTRODUCTION
	BACKGROUND
	LITERATURE REVIEW
	METHODOLOGY
	RESULTS
	DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
	NOTES