"an illogical concept from the beginning"? Not really. Just more card-
talk. In the old days, you'd type "Series" at the bottom of the card if 
the tracing was the same as the description (aka 440). You'd 
type "Series: Cataloghi d'arte (Alessandria, Italy" if that's the way 
the tracing was supposed to be typed (aka 4XX/8XX).

Our description in parenthesis after the collation might have been less 
strictly transcription, allowing for "Its Bulletin no. 23" and similar 
that allowed for a simple "Series" at the bottom of the card.

It's an old tradition that doesn't make as much sense in the automated 
world with copy/paste and copy field functionality. And it really 
doesn't work in systems with linked bib/authority records.

Sherman Clarke
NYU Libraries
[log in to unmask]

----- Original Message -----
From: Sue Wartzok <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Friday, July 28, 2006 8:55 am
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] Series coding proposal (fwd)

> I think this proposal should go forward ASAP because it *can* go 
> forward 
> ASAP.  However, the next step should be to ask MARBI to 
> "decommission" 
> the 440 field.  By being both a transcription field and a 
> potentially 
> authority controlled field, it has been an illogical concept from 
> the 
> beginning.
> Sue Wartzok
> 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:
> > 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
> >  
> >
> -- 
> Sue Wartzok
> Head, Cataloging Department
> Green Library
> University Park Campus
> Florida International University
> Miami, Florida  33199
> Phone:  (305) 348-6269
> Fax:  (305) 348-1798