It is also an issue I can discuss at Operations next week.
Peer
-----Original Message-----
From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
Behalf Of D. Brooking
Sent: Thursday, April 29, 2010 4:33 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCTG1] Non Latin guidelines final draft
I would like us to recommend paired fields, certainly for fields that
are
mandatory if applicable in the BSR, and that would in fact include the
505.
************
Diana Brooking (206) 685-0389
Cataloging Librarian (206) 685-8782 fax
Suzzallo Library [log in to unmask]
University of Washington
Box 352900
Seattle WA 98195-2900
On Thu, 29 Apr 2010, Fletcher, Peter wrote:
> We are also trying to conform to MARC21 Model A, which requires paired
> fields.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
> Behalf Of Robert Rendall
> Sent: Thursday, April 29, 2010 4:06 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [PCCTG1] Non Latin guidelines final draft
>
> Quoting "Fletcher, Peter" <[log in to unmask]>:
>
>> I also removed the option for optional fields to be added in
>> non-Latin only--this is allowed in OCLC, but it would not be a PCC
>> record if it were an option
>
> I thought we put that option in intentionally because LC was adding
> unpaired non-Latin contents fields? I think we should leave this the
> way it was. Or maybe I'm just confused. I'm home so I shouldn't be
> reading this anyway.
>
> Robert.
>
|