We have a philosophy of not stripping out data from records, unless it is
truly harmful and of no imaginable use. (For example, we strip 029s from
Unfortunately, if you think about it, there are many MARC fields that have
no "practical use" in our current systems.
But there can be all kinds of problems for maintenance and synchronization
of systems if our local data differs too much from network-level (PCC or
not) records. We may not display or index some MARC fields, but we want
to make sure we load the complete records into our local system. When the
new MARC changes came out associated with the RDA testing, we updated our
loaders to account for them.
Diana Brooking (206) 685-0389
Cataloging Librarian (206) 685-8782 fax
Suzzallo Library [log in to unmask]
University of Washington
Seattle WA 98195-2900
On Thu, 21 Oct 2010, Lasater, Mary Charles wrote:
> I'm broadening the previous topic a bit because our local system just failed to load some updated geographic
> authority records... Michigan, North Carolina, etc. because of a new linking field in the authority format.
> I looked at the MARC documentation but I do not see a practical use for the 751 so I'm wondering why I should
> bother with all the work of now manually replacing these records. I'm also wondering why I haven't seen
> If there is a practical reason, would someone share that with me? Point me to discussion?
> Mary Charles
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Adam L. Schiff
> Sent: Monday, October 18, 2010 4:38 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] Completion of the work of PCC SCS Non-Latin Script Cataloging Documentation TF
> This was discussed in May at the BIBCO and CONSER Operations Committees
> meeting. I raised a number of concerns about all the options and the
> implications for authority records and particularly for those of us who
> are using network level catalogs like WorldCat Local.