"an illogical concept from the beginning"? Not really. Just more card-
talk. In the old days, you'd type "Series" at the bottom of the card if
the tracing was the same as the description (aka 440). You'd
type "Series: Cataloghi d'arte (Alessandria, Italy" if that's the way
the tracing was supposed to be typed (aka 4XX/8XX).
Our description in parenthesis after the collation might have been less
strictly transcription, allowing for "Its Bulletin no. 23" and similar
that allowed for a simple "Series" at the bottom of the card.
It's an old tradition that doesn't make as much sense in the automated
world with copy/paste and copy field functionality. And it really
doesn't work in systems with linked bib/authority records.
Sherman Clarke
NYU Libraries
[log in to unmask]
----- Original Message -----
From: Sue Wartzok <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Friday, July 28, 2006 8:55 am
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] Series coding proposal (fwd)
> I think this proposal should go forward ASAP because it *can* go
> forward
> ASAP. However, the next step should be to ask MARBI to
> "decommission"
> the 440 field. By being both a transcription field and a
> potentially
> authority controlled field, it has been an illogical concept from
> the
> beginning.
>
> Sue Wartzok
>
> Les Hawkins wrote:
>
> >PCC list members, here is a message sent to CONSER and BIBCO
> members
> >for comment. We invite your comments as well- Les Hawkins
>
> >
> >---------- Forwarded message ----------
> >Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2006 14:02:25 -0400 (EDT)
> >From: Les Hawkins <[log in to unmask]>
> >To: [log in to unmask], [log in to unmask]
> >Cc: [log in to unmask], [log in to unmask]
> >Subject: Series coding proposal
> >
> >CONSER and BIBCO colleagues, please see the series proposal
> presented at
> >the CONSER At-Large meeting at ALA annual:
> >http://www.loc.gov/acq/conser/SeriesProposal.pdf. The proposal
> would allow
> >PCC participants the option of always coding the series statement
> in a 490
> >1 field and entering a controlled heading in the appropriate 8XX
> field.>Benefits include facilitating local global change utilities
> and being able
> >to take advantage of OCLC's control headings feature.
> >
> >We felt it important to vet this change with BIBCO, CONSER, and
> the PCC
> >Standards Committee for further comment before making this option
> >available to PCC members.
> >
> >We've talked to the Network Development and MARC Standards Office
> >(NDMSO) about the need for MARBI approval. Our understanding from
> NDMSO is
> >that as the proposal states, this is more a matter of program policy
> >rather than field redefinition and so probably does not require MARBI
> >approval to implement. The proposal for this practice was made
> several>years ago and though not approved at the time, it is
> likely that libraries
> >are making use of the practice in ILS implementations.
> >
> >If adjustments to the description of 490 indicator 1 need to be
> made, such
> >as from "traced differently" to "traced in a different field" (or
> similar>language), this could probably be incorporated as a minor
> editorial change
> >in the fall 2006 MARC update.
> >
> >We would like to receive your comments before September 8th,
> 2006. Please
> >send your comments to the listserv or feel free to send comments
> directly>to me or Carolyn Sturtevant.
> >
> >Thanks
> >Les Hawkins
> >CONSER Coordinator
> >202 707-5185
> >
> >
>
> --
> Sue Wartzok
> Head, Cataloging Department
> Green Library
> University Park Campus
> Florida International University
> Miami, Florida 33199
> Phone: (305) 348-6269
> Fax: (305) 348-1798
>
|