Print

Print


My OCLC colleagues and I have recently been reconsidering the MARBI
proposal from January 1989 as part of our series discussions.  We agree
that the proposal from the CONSER-at-Large meeting that would allow use
of the 490/8XX combination in place of the 440 is a step in the right
direction but we strongly support the points made by Sue Fuller in her
message to CONSRLST.  

The likely result of PCC participants having the option to either use
440 or 490/8XX would be more fiddling with records and that's not in
sync with the PCC's goals of standardization and consistency.  We
believe it would be better for use of the 490/8XX combination to become
the standard PCC practice.  We also believe that the MARBI proposal to
make field 440 obsolete should be revived.

--Glenn

Glenn Patton
Director, WorldCat Quality Management
OCLC Online Computer Library Center, Inc.
6565 Frantz Rd.
Dublin  OH  43017-3395
Phone: +1.800.848.5878, ext. 6371 or +1.614.764.6371
Fax: +1.614.718.7187
Email: mailto:[log in to unmask] 

-----Original Message-----
From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
Behalf Of Les Hawkins
Sent: Tuesday, July 25, 2006 2:02 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: [BIBCO] Series coding proposal

CONSER and BIBCO colleagues, please see the series proposal presented at
the CONSER At-Large meeting at ALA annual:
http://www.loc.gov/acq/conser/SeriesProposal.pdf. The proposal would
allow PCC participants the option of always coding the series statement
in a 490
1 field and entering a controlled heading in the appropriate 8XX field.
Benefits include facilitating local global change utilities and being
able to take advantage of OCLC's control headings feature.

We felt it important to vet this change with BIBCO, CONSER, and the PCC
Standards Committee for further comment before making this option
available to PCC members. 

We've talked to the Network Development and MARC Standards Office
(NDMSO) about the need for MARBI approval. Our understanding from NDMSO
is that as the proposal states, this is more a matter of program policy
rather than field redefinition and so probably does not require MARBI
approval to implement. The proposal for this practice was made several
years ago and though not approved at the time, it is likely that
libraries are making use of the practice in ILS implementations.

If adjustments to the description of 490 indicator 1 need to be made,
such as from "traced differently" to "traced in a different field" (or
similar language), this could probably be incorporated as a minor
editorial change in the fall 2006 MARC update.

We would like to receive your comments before September 8th, 2006.
Please send your comments to the listserv or feel free to send comments
directly to me or Carolyn Sturtevant.

Thanks
Les Hawkins
CONSER Coordinator
202 707-5185