Print

Print


Isn't it sad that this proposal--which been around in various guises 
for years--is being driven this time at least in part by featureless 
library systems?  What do we pay these vendors for?  (I hasten to add 
that Northwestern's own batch correction facilities have no problem 
dealing with 490s and 8XXs; and we have code in place that in effect 
undoes what's proposed here: convert a 490:1 into a 440 and delete 
the 830 when the 830 matches the 490:1.)  Simply allowing people with 
inadequate library systems to use a 490:1/8XX in all cases is a 
trivial matter, and obviously doesn't cause serious problems because 
several institutions have been doing this for a while.  (But please 
leave the 440 field alone.)



At 12:46 PM 7/27/2006, Les Hawkins wrote:
>PCC list members, here is a message sent to CONSER and BIBCO members
>for comment. We invite your comments as well- Les Hawkins
>
>---------- Forwarded message ----------
>Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2006 14:02:25 -0400 (EDT)
>From: Les Hawkins <[log in to unmask]>
>To: [log in to unmask], [log in to unmask]
>Cc: [log in to unmask], [log in to unmask]
>Subject: 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


Gary L. Strawn, Authorities Librarian, etc.
Northwestern University, 1970 Campus Drive, Evanston IL 60208-2300
e-mail: [log in to unmask]   voice: 847/491-2788   fax: 847/491-8306
Forsan et haec olim meminisse iuvabit.