Hi Jimmie,
Because the series title proper, etc. (e.g., parallel title, ISSN, numbering) will already be recorded in the series statement (490 0#), giving the series title again in a variant title field isn't appropriate because the comprehensive title isn't a variant of the analytic title.
Judy
>>> [log in to unmask] 06/01/06 10:52 AM >>>
Hi Judy,
The treatment of monographic sets seems to be error-prone no
matter what we do, but now I'm really perplexed. The decision by LC to
catalog each volume in monographic sets separately and enter the set
title as an untraced series leaves no provision for browse access for
the set. Since frequently the set title is very prominent on the
volumes, wouldn't it be worthwhile for LC in the new situation to
consider entering the set titles as uncontrolled title added entries,
such as "At head of title:" 246 fields? Thanks,
Jimmie
Jimmie Lundgren
Science and Social Science Cataloging Unit Head
George A. Smathers Libraries
University of Florida
P.O. Box 117007
Gainesville, FL 32611-7007
352-392-0351 phone
352-392-7365 fax
[log in to unmask]
-----Original Message-----
From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
Behalf Of Adam L. Schiff
Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2006 6:22 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: [PCCLIST] Another question for Judy K.
Judy,
Another question that I have for you is about the "pass through" of
series
statements coded as 440 or 490 1/8XX. Will LC staff be checking that
the
4XX recorded in a record used for lccopycat is transcribed correctly and
will they correct those that are not transcribed correctly? I have
unfortunately come across numerous records in OCLC that contain 440s of
this type:
440 _0 Occasional paper (Ahmadu Bello University. Dept. of Geography)
where it is clear that the cataloger that contributed the record doesn't
understand the difference between transcribing the series as it appears
and providing a controlled series title access point.
My assumption based on your previous message is that LC staff will take
an
incorrect series statement such as the example above and change it to
just
a 490 0 with the series transcribed correctly (but not converting the
incorrect 440 to an 8XX). Is this assumption correct?
Thanks,
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]
http://faculty.washington.edu/~aschiff
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
On Wed, 31 May 2006, Judith A Kuhagen wrote:
> Adam and Antony,
> I'm pre-empting Antony in replying now. See responses preceded
by "JAK" in the message below.
> Judy
>
>
>>>> [log in to unmask] 05/31/06 3:05 PM >>>
> Antony,
>
> Some comments and questions based on the revised PCC series FAQ and
the
> announcement you forwarded:
>
> In the series FAQ it says:
>
> "The code pcc in field 042 will no longer be used in LC original core
> cataloging (040 $a is solely DLC and Enc/lvl is 4); such records in a
CIP
> state (Enc/lvl is 8) are assumed to be done at core level, the default
> cataloging level at LC.
>
> The code pcc will continue to be used in CIP-partnered core cataloging
> (040 $a is XXX/DLC; XXX = partner's code) for those partners who
choose to
> continue to provide controlled series access."
>
>
> Am I understanding this correctly to mean that for publications that
are
> not in any series (i.e. no 4XX at all needs to be transcribed) that
even
> these records will not be coded as PCC records from LC? I had assumed
> that it would only be the records with series that wouldn't be coded
pcc
> from LC. If all access points on a bibliographic record created by LC
are
> under authority control, why isn't LC contributing these as PCC
records?
>
> JAK: The management decision was that "pcc" wouldn't be used in any
monograph core records so that catalogers would be doing the same thing
in all monograph records. (Note: LC has never used "pcc" in its full
level records.)
>
> My other question was raised on this list earlier, but still isn't
> answered by the documentation that I've seen: in the 490 0's that LC
does
> transcribe, will the ISSN ($x) also be transcribed in the field if
present
> on the item?
>
> JAK: The ISSN is a descriptive element. There is no change in
transcribing descriptive elements: title proper, parallel titles, other
title information, statement of responsibility, ISSN, numbering. What
is changing is the tag for the 4XX field.
>
> Thanks very much,
>
> 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] *
> **************************************
>
|