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.

>>> [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 >>>

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?



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]