> Daniel stated:
> >... A citation of OCLC is just fine, as I
> >understand it, as the "LC in OCLC" designation is no longer the done.
> >(Didn't we discuss this just a few weeks ago?)
> Did this NACO person doze off? I don't remember the discussion
> and/or decision. Can someone please confirm or just refresh my memory?
I did find this from Ana Cristan, June 3, 1999:
"We stopped expecting catalogers to explicitly identify "LC in OCLC"
headings years ago because it began to get too complex and have tried to
simply have catalogers report BFM if both subfield a and subfield c of
the 040 say DLC. We still do try to provide some BFM guidance with
pages 43-48 of Day 1 in the OCLC Training/Trainers' manual devoted to
this, but this has no effect on what the 670 citation should/or
shouldnot look like."
Which is also the practice I've been following for myself and the
libraries I work with.
Daniel CannCasciato, Head of Cataloging
Central Washington University Library
Ellensburg WA 98926-7548 [log in to unmask]
"The difference between science and the fuzzy subjects is that science
requires reasoning while those other subjects merely require
scholarship" -- Robert Heinlein