LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for PCCTG1 Archives


PCCTG1 Archives

PCCTG1 Archives


PCCTG1@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

PCCTG1 Home

PCCTG1 Home

PCCTG1  August 2013

PCCTG1 August 2013

Subject:

Re: MARC coding for variant titles in CCM Module 7

From:

Les Hawkins <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Program for Cooperative Cataloging <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Fri, 16 Aug 2013 15:06:49 -0400

Content-Type:

TEXT/PLAIN

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

TEXT/PLAIN (137 lines)

Hello all,

Module 7.2 shows image examples of the different types of variant titles
that we still give (parallel title, running title etc.) although we would
code the 246 fields differently. I like the idea of retaining the examples
of the various types and updating 246 indicators in the record examples to
current practice.

I agree with Steven's suggestion of using the CEG for noting past MARC
coding practice rather than Module 22. This is also a good example of the
type of CEG revision that your group may run into and will need to track
for your report.

I think also in this case it probably would not hurt to add a very brief
footnote in CCM Module 7.2 pointing out that past practice was to use the
list of 2nd indicator values found in the MARC 21 format. --Les






On Fri, 16 Aug 2013, Riel, Steven wrote:

> Dear all,
> 
> Module 22 does not focus much on MARC coding.  It focuses more on changes in the cataloging codes and the data content.
> 
> I was thinking about whether the CEG is a good place for historical information about CONSER-specific past practice using MARC.  I just looked at the CEG instructions for the 037 field.  At the bottom it says:
> 
> Maintenance of CONSER records
> Fields 265 and 350 will remain valid on OCLC for some time.  Catalogers need not change these records to move data to field 037.
> 
> Is this what we need for the 246?
> 
> Steven
> 
> From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Robert Rendall
> Sent: Friday, August 16, 2013 2:28 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [PCCTG1] MARC coding for variant titles in CCM Module 7
> 
> We've been changing our practices in different areas so frequently lately, and are likely enough to continue doing so, that the CCM could easily become overloaded with information about former practices.  If we have to have footnotes, I hope we keep them as brief and general as possible ("formerly, more specific indicators were used").
> 
> Robert.
> 
> On 8/16/2013 2:09 PM, Dickerson, Eugene H wrote:
> I think that if former cataloging practices are retained for historical purposes, they should really be in the module to which they pertain rather than in a module that’s just about former practices.  (You’d have to realize that it’s a former practice in order to consult a module on former practices!  If you’re a new RDA cataloger who never used AACR2 or earlier codes, how would you know that?)  I’d hate to see the CCM follow the model of the RDA Toolkit for endless links resulting in incessant clicking (often with no useful result).  I think that the context of the former practice is useful (e.g. former practice about use of indicator values for variant titles is important to have when talking about variant titles).  If information on the former practices is retained, I’d suggest the footnote approach that Mary mentioned.
> 
> Gene
> 
> Eugene Dickerson
> Lead Librarian for Cataloging
> Ralph J. Bunche Library
> U.S. Dept. of State
> 2201 C Street NW, Rm. 2438
> A/GIS/IPS/LIBR
> Washington, DC 20520
> (202) 647-2191 voice
> (202) 647-0203 fax
> [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> Ready to take your research skills to the next level?
> Bunche Library FullSearch<http://primo02v2.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/primo_library/libweb/action/search.do?dscnt=1&fromLogin=true&dstmp=1297434884855&vid=BUNCHE&fromLogin=true>
> Try it - let us know if you like it. [log in to unmask]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This email is UNCLASSIFIED.
> 
> 
> From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Ed Jones
> Sent: Friday, August 16, 2013 1:54 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: [PCCTG1] MARC coding for variant titles in CCM Module 7
> 
> Or maybe include in module 22, with a footnote pointing from here to there? It looks like module 22 would be a good place for older MARC practice as well as older cataloging practice.
> 
> Ed
> 
> From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Mary Grenci
> Sent: Friday, August 16, 2013 10:15 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: [PCCTG1] MARC coding for variant titles in CCM Module 7
> 
> Move the old practice to a footnote.
> 
> Mary
> 
> 
> From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]]<mailto:[mailto:[log in to unmask]]> On Behalf Of Ed Jones
> Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2013 4:17 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: [PCCTG1] MARC coding for variant titles in CCM Module 7
> 
> I would remove all mention. Best not to leave any evidence at the crime scene.
> 
> Ed
> 
> From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Balster, Kevin
> Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2013 3:30 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: [PCCTG1] MARC coding for variant titles in CCM Module 7
> 
> Hello all,
> 
> While revising Module 7, we editors have run into an issue regarding coding for the indicators of field 246. Currently, the content and examples of Module 7 (most frequently seen in section 7.2) offer guidance on when to use specific indicators in field 246, including second indicator 4 for cover title and 6 for caption title. However, according to the CONSER MARC-to-RDA Core Elements document, current CONSER practice is to code all variant titles as 246 1# or 246 11 for parallel titles.
> 
> We’ve thought about handling this in one of two ways. We could either simply remove any mention of indicators that aren’t 246 1# or 246 11, or we could keep the information on the additional indicators, and add something stating that current practice is to use 246 1# or 246 11. Before we commit to one of the methods, we thought that we’d get a sense of how other CONSER members would like this situation to be handled.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> -Kevin
> 
> Kevin Balster
> ERM/Continuing Resources Metadata Librarian
> UCLA Cataloging & Metadata Center
> (310)825-1936
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --
> 
> Robert Rendall
> 
> Principal Serials Cataloger
> 
> Original and Special Materials Cataloging, Columbia University Libraries
> 
> 102 Butler Library, 535 West 114th Street, New York, NY 10027
> 
> tel.: 212 851 2449  fax: 212 854 5167
> 

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

April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
August 2019
July 2019
May 2019
April 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
October 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
December 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
June 2001
January 2001
December 2000
November 2000
October 2000
September 2000
July 2000

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.LOC.GOV

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager