At 10:50 AM 2/9/00 -0500, Jean Craig wrote:
>Hi,

>    I had just approached our BIBCO trainer with a similar
>question--whether I could code as pcc core those records for
>videorecordings where the access points were authorized but the
>descriptive elements (particularly the 5XX notes) were out of strict
>AACR2 order.  He pointed me to the remarks mentioned above-- and their
>conclusion-- and reminded me that all elements of description and
>analysis in the  entire record have to be in apple-pie order.

Pardon me for expressing heresy here on the apple-pie-ness order of notes
needed in order to code a record as following AACR2 (and/or PCC). Please be
aware that a lot of libraries do their cataloging on their own system (why
in the world did they pay all that money for a cataloging system if they
don't intend to catalog on it?) rather than on a utility, and then upload
the records to the utility. There are a lot of systems out there that
automatically flip 5XX fields into MARC order, which as we all know is NOT
AACR2 X.7 order. Are catalogers on such systems to be excluded from
creating PCC records?

Furthermore, what does the introduction of the 246 field (which creates a
lot of notes--does it not?--replacing former 5XX fields), do to the strict
apple-pie order of our AACR2-coded MARC 21 records? Can we no longer code a
record AACR2 that has the cover title "The fair American" (note required
under 2.7B4) because now we put that particular note in a 246 field, which
would precede in the MARC record a language note (2.7B2)? What about the
notes created by the 78X fields? MARC coding has in many ways made the
AACR2 stipulation about the order of the notes pretty meaningless, in my
opinion.

As it happens our own system does not flip the fields into MARC order, and
neither does RLIN, the utility we use. But I also have to admit that I do
not think to myself, as I add notes (that is, those that fall into 5XX
fields) to an original record or look at a record I am upgrading to AACR2,
"Now, is this strictly in the order AACR2 prescribes?" Perhaps I should.
Does everyone else? On the other hand, AACR2 itself gives the cataloger an
out: 2.7B allows the cataloger to put the notes in a different order if
he/she thinks a note (or notes, I think) is more important than the others.

I note a National Library of Canada rule interpretation to 1.7B:
"Generally, give notes in the order in which they are listed in 1.7B.
However, because of the difficulty in providing a specific order for
general notes in the DOBIS environment, make no effort to follow the order
specifically." (Howarth, AACR2 Decisions & Rule Interpretations, 6th
edition). This same difficulty certainly applies to the MARC 21
environment. I don't find an LCRI on the subject, but perhaps I overlooked it.

I do not agree that we are required to reorder notes found in cataloging
that we are upgrading to AACR2 just to make the order of the notes fit the
current order in AACR2 in order to code the record "a" and pcc. Did I miss
some sort of directive or is it just obvious to everyone else?


Bob Maxwell
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Robert L. Maxwell
Special Collections and Ancient Languages Cataloger
6430 Harold B. Lee Library
Brigham Young University
Provo, UT 84602
(801) 378-5568
[log in to unmask]
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=