Yes, you are correct sir (and thanks). I'll take a revised version with
me to OpCo, and send it out again to Becky.
From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
Behalf Of David W Reser
Sent: Monday, May 03, 2010 8:04 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: [PCCTG1] Non-Latin omission, I believe ...
Sorry not to have noticed this sooner, but I think in our revisions we
may have accidentaly dropped the 250 field from the table of Mandatory
if applicable elements (shown right before 1.1 in the document). It is
listed as a MA element at 1.3, but should also be in the table on the MA