 |
 |
Joan, Yes, you'd leave the coding as 440 because you are "passing through" the series fields as found and are not consulting series authority records. Judy >>> [log in to unmask] 05/31/06 7:11 PM >>> I had a somewhat similar case this morning: a Hebrew item for which the copy gave the series as "Prozah" in a 440. Because it was only May 31, I checked the authority file and verified that the series was really the one established as "Prozah (Yedi'ot aharonot (Firm))," so I created an 830 and the whole nine yards ... There is a different series called simply "Prozah." On June 1st, would I have left the coding as 440? Joan Biella Hebraica Team, LC >>> [log in to unmask] 05/31/06 6:22 PM >>> Judy, Another question that I have for you is about the "pass through" of series statements coded as 440 or 490 1/8XX. Will LC staff be checking that the 4XX recorded in a record used for lccopycat is transcribed correctly and will they correct those that are not transcribed correctly? I have unfortunately come across numerous records in OCLC that contain 440s of this type: 440 _0 Occasional paper (Ahmadu Bello University. Dept. of Geography) where it is clear that the cataloger that contributed the record doesn't understand the difference between transcribing the series as it appears and providing a controlled series title access point. My assumption based on your previous message is that LC staff will take an incorrect series statement such as the example above and change it to just a 490 0 with the series transcribed correctly (but not converting the incorrect 440 to an 8XX). Is this assumption correct? Thanks, Adam ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Adam L. Schiff Principal Cataloger University of Washington Libraries Box 352900 Seattle, WA 98195-2900 (206) 543-8409 (206) 685-8782 fax [log in to unmask] http://faculty.washington.edu/~aschiff ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~