I think the confusion stems from the fact that we were under
the impression that we did not have to check with LC
before entering a locally formulated author number
in an 050 (indicator 4) field on a BIBCO record.
According to your description, the situation is actually
akin to that for untraced series, that is, one must check
the NAF anyway, to make sure it has not been established as a traced
series. In the case of author numbers, then, one must check
with LC first to make sure it does not already exist in the LC shelflist,
before assigning a locally formulated author number for an 050 field.
Since this requires an extra step, I think many of these records
will not be coded pcc.
I guess the confusion stems from the
definition of "variant practice". An author (or musician or artist)
number, I felt, did not necessarily represent "variant practice"
with respect to the proper application of the classification system,
just because it was not identical with the number in use by LC,
since, as we know, these numbers are formulated relative to the
numbers which already exist in one's own shelflist. My institution
has its own local shelflists for musicians and artists. Most of
the numbers not the same as LC's. According to your guidelines, then
none of these records can be coded as BIBCO records, is that correct?
On Mon, 21 Sep 1998 08:56:50 PDT W. Cromwell-Kessler said:
>REPLY TO 09/17/98 14:18 FROM [log in to unmask] "Program for Cooperative
>Cataloging": Classification numbers for authors, musicians, artists
>I find your query about classification number interesting since I would
>have thought (hoped) that it was answered in the statement on BIBCO
>classification that is posted on the PCC home page. If it is not, then
>that much worked-over statement is perhaps still too indirect.
>For what it is worth, here is what I construe the classification
>"clarification" to intend (and if others think it is saying something else,
>then that proves that it needs still more work):
>BIBCO libraries must use LC author, artist and topical cutters (i.e., all
>cutters that can be considered to be part of the actual class # and not
>specific to the edition of a work that is in hand) when those have been
>established by LC; other local cutters may be entered in local call number
>fields, but should not be input in the 050 (indicator "4"). If LC has not
>established such cutters, then BIBCO libraries may assign one, conforming
>to the appropriate practice for the system in use, and input it in the 050
>(indicator "4"); LC may change the cutter later when they need to deal with
>the particular entity it represents since they will need to take into
>account the exigencies of their shelf-list. BIBCO participants are
>encouraged to submit suggested class numbers for authors of Belles Lettres
>as described in NACO participants manual (2nd ed.), p. 20 and/or though
>Does this coincide with others' understanding?
>To: [log in to unmask]