Yes, you'd leave the coding as 440 because you are "passing through" the series fields as found and are not consulting series authority records.
>>> [log in to unmask] 05/31/06 7:11 PM >>>
I had a somewhat similar case this morning: a Hebrew item for which the copy gave the series as "Prozah" in a 440. Because it was only May 31, I checked the authority file and verified that the series was really the one established as "Prozah (Yedi'ot aharonot (Firm))," so I created an 830 and the whole nine yards ... There is a different series called simply "Prozah." On June 1st, would I have left the coding as 440?
Hebraica Team, LC
>>> [log in to unmask] 05/31/06 6:22 PM >>>
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
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?
Adam L. Schiff
University of Washington Libraries
Seattle, WA 98195-2900
(206) 685-8782 fax
[log in to unmask]