LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for EDUCAT Archives


EDUCAT Archives

EDUCAT Archives


EDUCAT@LISTSERV.LOC.GOV


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

EDUCAT Home

EDUCAT Home

EDUCAT  September 2008

EDUCAT September 2008

Subject:

Re: How are you teaching series?

From:

Deborah Fritz <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Discussion List for issues related to cataloging & metadata education & training <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Mon, 29 Sep 2008 21:40:37 -0400

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (171 lines)

Hi Suzanne,

You said: "I'm also not clear on what the indicators would be and whether a
490 is required if the series is traced as given on the item; it appears to
be optional, but the wording of the proposal is vague and ambiguous." 

I think it is simply a case of remembering which rules/standards tell us
what. Once 440s are obsolete, only 490s will be used for series statements. 
It is not up to MARC to tell us whether a 490 is required--AACR tells us
that a series statement is required if it is provided on a resource and MARC
simply tells us that (once 440 is obsolete) we will only use the 490 for a
series statement. If we then decide that it would be useful for our patrons
to be able to search for a particular series in a browse search, then we
need to add a series added entry, and use an appropriate 8XX field for that
series added entry, whether that series added entry is the same as the
series statement (in the 490) or is different. 

490 first indicator = 0 says this series statement does not need to be
browse indexed with an 8XX series added entry.

490 first indicator = 1 says this series statement is browsed indexed using
an 8XX series added entry.
 
After hearing with our own ears that the proposal to make 440 obsolete was
passed in the MARBI meeting at ALA in Anaheim, and after discussions with
other catalogers, a contact at LC, and a contact at OCLC, we are teaching
the new way; with only a nod to the old way--no more 440, start using 490
alone (if the series is not to be browse indexed--as we have already been
doing) and 490/830 (if the series is to be browse indexed--whether it is to
be indexed the same or differently).

We realize that this isn't *official* until the MARC Update #9 (October
2008) is published--which *might* just be done in Oct 2008 (instead of March
2009 as has been the previous pattern)--but this should not be a radical
change for anyone who has been treating series properly in the first place;
and it certainly is easier to teach!!

-------------
In our very first workshop of our cataloging series (where we are not yet
teaching cataloging--just explaining the general purpose of the most
commonly used MARC fields, especially for indexing and display purposes) we
simply say:

"The 490 field is used for a series statement, so it displays but is not
indexed. It contains the title of a series whether that title: 
	does not need to be indexed (0); or
	needs to be indexed (1)

If a series title needs to be indexed, then the 'heading' for the series
must be given as a series added entry in an 8XX field (already discussed
under 'Indexed fields').

We used to use the 440 field for both a series statement and a series added
entry (it was indexed and displayed). It will be made obsolete in late 2008,
and was so confusing for many catalogers that they have already stopped
using it in new records. However, 440 fields can still appear in some new
records (until the field is officially made obsolete) and will continue to
appear in old records that have not been updated (after the field has
officially been made obsolete). If you see a 440 in a record, just be aware
that it contains a series statement that is also indexed as a series added
entry. Which means that an 8XX series added entry is not needed in the
record, because the series title is already indexed in the 440.

At this point, the most important thing for you to know about the 490 field
is that it is NOT indexed."
--------------------
In our later workshops, especially the 4-day Book Blitz I--where we really
start teaching cataloging, we say:

"If you already know how to use the 440, you may continue to do so, if there
is a local need for you to do so. If, however, you are new to this topic, we
recommend that you immediately switch from using the 440, to using the
490/830 combination that we are about to explain."

Then, on Day 2 when we cover bibliographic descriptive fields 260-5xx, we
explain the AACR rule about transcribing the series statement exactly--and
show them how to enter the statement in a 490; and we say:
" Don't obsess about this 440 to 490/830 switch. It is a 'good thing'! You
will see many 440s in older records and will continue to see them in new
records for a long time (catalogers are often slow to adopt changes) It is
OK to leave 440s in records, as long as you know how to tell whether those
440s are correct." At which point we explain about the filing indicators and
verifying 440 headings in the LC authority file.

Then, on Day 3, when we cover the AACR rules for access points, we explain
how to use the LC Authority records in order to find established series
headings and decide on the appropriate 8XX fields to use for those headings
so as to provide them as as series added entries and say: 
" It is now much simpler to explain series treatment: we use 490 for all
series statements, and use an appropriate 8XX for all series added entries"
--------------------------
We also explain the LC Series Decision (aka LSD) and its implications, but
this has to wait until Book Blitz II (2 Days)
--------------------------
Finally, in Book Blitz III (2 Days), we discuss the impact of this decision
to make 440s obsolete on indexing and on authority control--basically no
impact, as long as the library has been following AACR rules for cataloging
and the correct MARC coding for the content all along.

I just realized how long this message has become--sorry about that. But I
hope that it is helpful.

Deborah
-----
Deborah Fritz
TMQ, Inc.
321-676-1904
[log in to unmask]

-----Original Message-----
From: Discussion List for issues related to cataloging & metadata education
& training [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Suzanne Stauffer
Sent: Monday, September 29, 2008 9:02 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [eduCAT] How are you teaching series?

I'm teaching the current use of 440 and 490/830. I have not seen any
official statement that the proposed change has been instituted, and the
MARC website has not been changed. I'm also not clear on what the indicators
would be and whether a 490 is required if the series is traced as given on
the item; it appears to be optional, but the wording of the proposal is
vague and ambiguous. 
 
It's difficult enough to understand one concept at a time; I don't want to
confuse them by teaching competing methods for handling the same concept,
particularly when one of them has not yet been finalized or released.
 
I'll save the proposed method for advanced cataloging.  
 
Suzanne M. Stauffer, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor
School of Library and Information Science
Louisiana State University
275 Coates Hall
Baton Rouge, LA 70803
(225)578-1461
Fax: (225)578-4581
[log in to unmask]

________________________________

From: Discussion List for issues related to cataloging & metadata education
& training on behalf of Kamoji, Linda J
Sent: Mon 9/29/2008 6:51 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: [eduCAT] How are you teaching series?



Hi. How are you dealing with teaching the series MARC fields for monographs?

Teaching the proposed abandonment of 440 and using 490 1 and 8XX only?

Teaching both the old (440) and the new ways?

Something else?

Thanks for any input.

Linda Kamoji
Indiana University Libraries
Cataloging manager and Adjunct Lecturer


__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature
database 3481 (20080929) __________

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
July 2020
June 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
March 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
June 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
December 2007
November 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
April 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.LOC.GOV

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager