Since my posting last Thursday in which I referred to a posting to
CONSRLST by Sue Fuller of the U of Texas, I've had several requests to
forward that posting to the BIBCO list.  I've gotten Sue's permission to
forward and, since it also included a message from Ed Jones of National
University, I've gotten his permission as well.


-----Original Message-----
From: CONSER Cataloging Discussion List [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
Behalf Of Sue Fuller
Sent: Thursday, July 27, 2006 8:20 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Series coding proposal

Ed's suggestion reminds me of my first impression when I read the
proposal:  rather than making use of 490/830 an option for PCC records,
might we consider making it standard practice? Given all the reasons
that 440 fields can be problematic that others have stated, is there
justification for continuing to use them?  The fewer situations where we
define options in our PCC practice, the more straightforward the
documentation and training of new catalogers becomes.

We could then pursue Ed's suggestion of a MARBI proposal, with the
strong evidence of our own policy adding weight to it.
Sue Fuller

At 05:41 PM 7/25/2006, Ed Jones wrote:
>I agree that the fewer elements do "double duty" as description and
>access the better.  Ideally, this proposed practice could lead to a
>MARBI proposal covering the following points:
>1. Make field 440 obsolete (On existing records, change to 490 and
>create 830 with identical data)
>2. Make indicator 1 in field 490 obsolete (Delete any value from
>existing records).  Redefine 490 as "Series area."