Bcc; judithh, helenb
Subject: MARBI Paper on German needs 
Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2006 09:45:20 -0800
Organization: Special Libraries Cataloguing Inc.
Message-ID: <[log in to unmask]>
Lines: 27

Discussion Paper No. 2007-DP01: Changes for the German and Austrian
conversion to MARC 21
http://www.loc.gov/marc/marbi/2007/2007-dp01.html

I think UKMARC's 248 is an easier solution to the problem of
representing volumes in a set with "strong" titles.  A single field
both records the volume title, and gives direct access to it.   Our
customers would never accept the German solution of a record for each
volume *plus* a record for the set.  For our customers, to avoid
circulation confusion, it should be one or the other; a record for
each volume, or a record for the set with 505s (repeating if necessary
for three levels of description).

The only exception we have to this record to item correspondence
(whether the item is single or multipart) is a Canadian Federal
library which for political reasons must have both an English
(040$beng) and French (040$bfre) record for each English/French
bilingual item, resulting in two records per item, with holdings
attached to only one of them.  Perhaps that 004 being suggested by
OCLC would help link them.


   __       __   J. McRee (Mac) Elrod ([log in to unmask])
  {__  |   /     Special Libraries Cataloguing   HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
  ___} |__ \__________________________________________________________