LC series decision: LC’s implementation of the decision
Beacher Wiggins (Director, Acquisitions and Bibliographic Access, LC) has
notified the PCC Policy Committee that LC “will submit or not its
bibliographic records according to the guidelines in place”. As I mention
in another email message, the current PCC core record standard requires
that tracing policies in existing series authority records be followed.
Since LC will not be performing series authority control any longer, its
bibliographic records with series do not comply with the PCC standard, and
need to be identified as non-PCC records, until and unless PCC changes its
standard. MARC 21 field 042 (authentication code) may not be “pcc” or any
of the CONSER codes for these records. It is likely that new codes will be
helpful in identifying which standards are being followed in a record.
It would be helpful to get clarification on what partially analyzed series
bibliographic records will look like under LC’s new policy.
Information from LC on partially analyzable multipart monographs has been
contradictory; please clarify.
In the 490 field, will LC be using either |l (Library of Congress call
number) or |x (ISSN) any differently from current practice?
Will LC be altering any of its practices for series bibliographic records?
How will LC be treating series-like phrases?
As Diana Brooking (University of Washington) points out, the verb
“tracing” is not as clear as it could be in the online context. It would
seem useful for the term to be reviewed in MARC and other documentation
for clearer wording. Does it mean “indexing”? If so, does it imply phrase
indexing as opposed to keyword indexing? Or does it mean “controlling”?
Paul J. Weiss
Chair, PCC Standing Committee on Standards