Ken,

This was one of the actions resulting from the PCC Ad Hoc Series Review Task Force. There has long been an ambiguity in using the 440 field as both a transcription field and as a controlled access point.

The committee report and recommendations at

http://www.loc.gov/catdir/pcc/archive/SeriesReviewTF.html

recognized that in cases in which the transcription and the controlled heading were identical, it would look odd.

They felt, however, that having a single transcription field, the 490, accompanied by a controlled access point in an 8XX field (if present), made clearer the treatment and tracing decision. It also allows for greater ease of machine manipulation of bibliographic records if one institution is using copy from another institution that had chosen not to trace that series.

Anthony R.D. Franks
Head, Cooperative Programs Section
Cooperative and Instructional Programs Division
Library of Congress
202-707-2822 (voice)
202-252-2082 (fax)

>>> "Dinin, Ken" <[log in to unmask]> 11/13/2008 7:08 AM >>>

Coding for 490 first indicator definitions:

1 - Series traced in 8XX field

When value "1" is used, the appropriate field 800-830 is included in the
bibliographic record to provide the series added entry.

Does this mean that if the series statement is identical to the heading,
field 8XX is simply repeats field 490 1? This is the way in which LTI
handles series validation but it certainly makes for an
illogical-looking and somewhat confusing record. Why was it thought
necessary to abolish field 440?

============================
Kenneth Dinin
Senior Cataloger
Thomas J. Watson Library
The Metropolitan Museum of Art
1000 Fifth Avenue
New York, NY 10028-0198
-------------------------------------------
Voice: (212) 650-2440
Fax: (212) 570-3847
E-mail: [log in to unmask]
============================