Hello All Yall,
I went off to Florida to work on my tan and found out I left behind a bit of confusion. My apologies, but here's the deal: CPSO recently updated LCRI 26.3B-C, and in doing so removed a requirement for a mandatory "work cat." 670 citation (with "name not given") in a situation where other useful citations were made. Since it was removed in that instance, we did a sweep to clear out other vestiges of its use. (I note that we sent out LCRI 26.3B-C for comment and we did not receive any comments on the deletion of that guideline)
Nonetheless, now that the issue has been raised, we now realize that many of you feel there is a need to always have the "work cat." citation and to have some indication of whether or not the name appeared in the item, etc., while others appreciated the recognition that creating a "work cat." citation when the name wasn't found was not always a useful exercise.
CPSO will draft a new paragraph to replace the deleted one in the 670 yellow pages to:
-allow, but not require such a citation (presuming that other useful citations are provided)
-indicate that if the citation is given, it is to be coded as 670 and not 675
-continue the practice to indicate "(name not given)" in 670 $b that will help "explain" the citation
-and provide guidance as to when the citation might be useful for other catalogers interpreting the record, based on comments received on the list.
The draft will be sent out for your review and comments (I'm not taking the hit on this one by myself)
Since the update to the DCM has "gone to bed," the revised guidelines will not appear until Fall (the next update cycle). In the meantime, you may continue to use the current conventions of citing the "name not given" technique as needed.
How does that sound?
Ana Lupe Cristán
Cooperative Cataloging Specialist
Library of Congress, LM 537
Washington, DC 20540-4382
email: [log in to unmask]