>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."
Perhaps a clarification from Ana would be helpful, as I had
interpreted her message differently.
It was my understanding that this message related to notifying LC of
BFM needed on its records. Specifically, it is not necessary to
provide LC with a listing of its bib. record numbers containing the
heading to be revised; only a general notification that BFM is
required on one or more LC bib. records is necessary.
I thought this message was unrelated to the NAR 670 "LC in OCLC"
citation practice (hinted at in the last quoted sentence above).
But now I am not so sure.
David Van Hoy, Principal
[log in to unmask]