Dear Ralph et al.,
Some historical background:
The use of "$5 DPCC" didn't begin until late in 1998 and it was only included in SARs being created for new series. Until then, a "$5 DLC" was often considered a "national-level" practice if other libraries wanted to use LC records in a copycat workstream without needing to check for consistency in presence/absence of series access points. Of course, any library can have any local practice it wants.
There was also a period of time in 1998 (and perhaps backwards into the end of 1997 - my memory fails me) when PCC participants were told to include a 645 $a t $5 DLC in new records (no $5 DLC for other treatment fields) to substitute for the national practice while we waited for MARC Development and National Standards Office to approve the "DPCC" code. Such a use of "DLC" was feasible because LC had changed its local practice to trace all new series as of 1989.
Judy
>>> [log in to unmask] 11/01/06 9:22 AM >>>
hi,
in the core record standards, we read:
4XX (Series statement)
35) Transcribe all series as found on an item in either a 490 or a 440
field. All traced series must be supported by a national level authority
record. Untraced series need not be supported by a national level
authority record. If a national level series authority record already
exists for the series, follow the first tracing practice indicated on the
record and record the series and tracing appropriately (i.e., in a 490
field, a 440 field or a 490/8XX pairing)
this is clear on the face of it. but what is appropriate practice for
a national level record if the series authority record has two
645 fields (neither with the DPCC code)?:
645 n $5 DLC
645 t $5 ICU
please advise,
--ralph p.
A. Ralph Papakhian, Indiana University Music Library
Bloomington, IN 47405 812/855-2970 [log in to unmask]
co-owner: [log in to unmask]
|