All,
I also agree with Adam, Manon and Gary, but I must admit I was
recently asked: 'Why not a 675?' and didn't have a good answer.
This seems to be an effort to simplify our work (which I support).
Can we come up with a better suggestion that answers all the
questions?
Mary Charles
--On Monday, March 06, 2006 11:59 AM -0800 Adam Schiff
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> ... we could continue to make the 670 citation anyway and we
>> could include the $b "name not given" if we really wanted to,
>> it just wouldn't be required.
>
> By removing this from the documentation, however, it ensures that
> it will not be included in future training materials and new NACO
> participants will not learn about it, even as an option.
>
> I agree with Manon and Gary that it's inadvisable to omit this
> 670, for the reasons they so clearly articulated. I hazard to
> guess that most of the authorities we create (at least, in OCLC,
> with which I'm most familiar) are initially generated through the
> use of a macro run on a heading on a bibliographic record, so
> that it really isn't much extra work to have that 670 anyway.
>
> Adam
>
> **************************************
> * Adam L. Schiff * * Principal Cataloger
> *
> * University of Washington Libraries *
> * Box 352900 *
> * Seattle, WA 98195-2900 *
> * (206) 543-8409 * * (206) 685-8782 fax
> *
> * [log in to unmask] *
> **************************************
---------------------------------------
Mary Charles Lasater
Vanderbilt University
Email: [log in to unmask]
|